I don’t think there’s a hard line. Nematodes will react to being touched, that implies a primitive level of self-awareness. Most animals possess some form of proprioceptive sense, against, a form of self awareness. Higher self-awareness is just about being able to predict and plan your own actions a few more moves ahead.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but it's easy to build small mechanical devices that react to being touched, so that alone doesn't imply self-awareness. As you go to smaller and smaller organisms, they start to more closely resemble actual mechanical(/chemical) devices.
Your leg is aware that your doctor hammered your knee; but is it self-aware? Not that we know.
People are just so loose with these concepts it's hard to even have an argument.
A bug wills to go forward but it is unaware that it is glued to some sick scientist's rig. It may well be conscious through the whole ordeal. Unaware and unremembering until the scientist mercilessly puts him in a freezer.
I love that their justification for this study is robots. I think science for the sake of learning is good and justification isn't always necessary. But it's so funny that we've moved beyond search and rescue as a justification for cool robots, to cool robots as a justification for studying octopi.
We lost that with the decline of the corporate research labs. PARC, Bell Labs, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, and such are shadows of what they used to be if they are even still around. Those facilities used to look at long range ideas and we are still reaping the benefits. Most research now is product centric, looking maybe 2 years ahead. I blame the tax cuts of the 80s and 90s.
Well, that and the faux-/manufactured outrage from US Congress. Things like Coburn's waste book were designed to lampoon and degrade seemingly silly or wasteful basic-science research from just a cursory overview of the title or cherry-picked facts. That's part of a larger agenda alongside cutting basic research for cuts-sake, but it means that everyone in science is searching for a justification for even the most meager of funding. Human biomedical health is a good target—if you can come up with any plausible link, your odds of funding are better (maybe)—and I suppose robots aren't a bad one either.
You didn't define "we", so from my POV it's therefore wrong. If I set "we" to "the world" than your statement doesn't apply. Same when I set it to "the western world" or even just to tiny "Germany" --- because it's country I know best.
"We" have Helmholtz, Fraunhofer, Leibniz, Max-Planck. They all do long-term institutionalized research. Sometimes on their own, sometimes for industry. They employ 45000, 22000, 24000 or 32000 people respectively, a good chunk of them researchers.
But if I make the "we" wider, then I see a whole lot of scientific "academies", most of them having several members in turn. See https://allea.org/members/
I can't judge if "most research now is product centric" is correct or not. But I guess that research ending in a concrete product you can buy boosts the publicity of the research manifold.
If e.g. Fraunhofer optimizes wind rotors for turbines ... who will know it? But if they create the MP3 compression ... then it's much wider known. But already the airbag or white LEDs? Both are inventions of Fraunhofer, too. Used world-wide. And yet few know them to be coming out of a public funded research agency.
If I extrapolate this assumption of mine then I guess that inventions by other research institutions like Batelle or Smithsonian aren't equally well-known. If they aren't concrete products. If my guess is valid is on your judgement.
These labs had one thing in common: they were funded by monopolies. Xerox with copy machines, Bell with the telephone, General Electric is also known for its monopolistic practices.
And you probably heard about these little things called LLMs, that's Google research, yup, another quasi-monopoly. And it wasn't product centric, in fact, Google turned out to be pretty bad at making a product out of their research, that's how OpenAI took over.
Monopolies are bad for consumers, but there is also some good. Because they make tons of money and don't have to worry about competitors, they can invest a lot into fundamental research with a long term perspective. A competitive industry rewards shorter term strategy, because companies can't afford to wait 20 years for the next big thing if their competitor takes over after 2 years with the next small thing.
> An octopus cannot get through a gap that is too small.
True, but "too small" is considerably smaller than a human unfamiliar with octopuses would believe when seeing one, because, as mentioned in TFA, "too small" means "smaller than the distance between the eyes", which can be much smaller than the apparent diameter of the body.
Many years ago, the ability of octopuses to pass through very small gaps became widely known only after a large number of cases when octopuses had escaped from aquaria which were believed by their owners to be impossible to escape from.
An octopus is what results when water gains consciousness.
I think of jellies more that way than octopuses, but consciousness in primitive creatures is a debatable topic.
I don’t think there’s a hard line. Nematodes will react to being touched, that implies a primitive level of self-awareness. Most animals possess some form of proprioceptive sense, against, a form of self awareness. Higher self-awareness is just about being able to predict and plan your own actions a few more moves ahead.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but it's easy to build small mechanical devices that react to being touched, so that alone doesn't imply self-awareness. As you go to smaller and smaller organisms, they start to more closely resemble actual mechanical(/chemical) devices.
Awareness doesn't imply self-awareness.
Your leg is aware that your doctor hammered your knee; but is it self-aware? Not that we know.
People are just so loose with these concepts it's hard to even have an argument.
A bug wills to go forward but it is unaware that it is glued to some sick scientist's rig. It may well be conscious through the whole ordeal. Unaware and unremembering until the scientist mercilessly puts him in a freezer.
Consciousness maybe, but intelligence is a given. Amoebas can transfer memory and intelligence no problem simply by meeting and combining
[dead]
I love that their justification for this study is robots. I think science for the sake of learning is good and justification isn't always necessary. But it's so funny that we've moved beyond search and rescue as a justification for cool robots, to cool robots as a justification for studying octopi.
We lost that with the decline of the corporate research labs. PARC, Bell Labs, Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, and such are shadows of what they used to be if they are even still around. Those facilities used to look at long range ideas and we are still reaping the benefits. Most research now is product centric, looking maybe 2 years ahead. I blame the tax cuts of the 80s and 90s.
Well, that and the faux-/manufactured outrage from US Congress. Things like Coburn's waste book were designed to lampoon and degrade seemingly silly or wasteful basic-science research from just a cursory overview of the title or cherry-picked facts. That's part of a larger agenda alongside cutting basic research for cuts-sake, but it means that everyone in science is searching for a justification for even the most meager of funding. Human biomedical health is a good target—if you can come up with any plausible link, your odds of funding are better (maybe)—and I suppose robots aren't a bad one either.
The NSF has a list of responses to various such things: <https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/wastebooks>
You didn't define "we", so from my POV it's therefore wrong. If I set "we" to "the world" than your statement doesn't apply. Same when I set it to "the western world" or even just to tiny "Germany" --- because it's country I know best.
"We" have Helmholtz, Fraunhofer, Leibniz, Max-Planck. They all do long-term institutionalized research. Sometimes on their own, sometimes for industry. They employ 45000, 22000, 24000 or 32000 people respectively, a good chunk of them researchers.
But if I make the "we" wider, then I see a whole lot of scientific "academies", most of them having several members in turn. See https://allea.org/members/
I can't judge if "most research now is product centric" is correct or not. But I guess that research ending in a concrete product you can buy boosts the publicity of the research manifold.
If e.g. Fraunhofer optimizes wind rotors for turbines ... who will know it? But if they create the MP3 compression ... then it's much wider known. But already the airbag or white LEDs? Both are inventions of Fraunhofer, too. Used world-wide. And yet few know them to be coming out of a public funded research agency.
If I extrapolate this assumption of mine then I guess that inventions by other research institutions like Batelle or Smithsonian aren't equally well-known. If they aren't concrete products. If my guess is valid is on your judgement.
[dead]
These labs had one thing in common: they were funded by monopolies. Xerox with copy machines, Bell with the telephone, General Electric is also known for its monopolistic practices.
And you probably heard about these little things called LLMs, that's Google research, yup, another quasi-monopoly. And it wasn't product centric, in fact, Google turned out to be pretty bad at making a product out of their research, that's how OpenAI took over.
Monopolies are bad for consumers, but there is also some good. Because they make tons of money and don't have to worry about competitors, they can invest a lot into fundamental research with a long term perspective. A competitive industry rewards shorter term strategy, because companies can't afford to wait 20 years for the next big thing if their competitor takes over after 2 years with the next small thing.
Amusing parallel: https://www.xkcd.com/2128/
Yeah that comic is what I thought of when I read the article, but then I realized the article's justification is an extra step beyond that
How octopuses squeeze through too small gaps
Obligatory click-bait title comment...
The article describes how octopuses get through holes in one of two ways, one for larger holes and one for smaller holes.
Spoiler: An octopus cannot get through a gap that is too small.
> An octopus cannot get through a gap that is too small.
True, but "too small" is considerably smaller than a human unfamiliar with octopuses would believe when seeing one, because, as mentioned in TFA, "too small" means "smaller than the distance between the eyes", which can be much smaller than the apparent diameter of the body.
Many years ago, the ability of octopuses to pass through very small gaps became widely known only after a large number of cases when octopuses had escaped from aquaria which were believed by their owners to be impossible to escape from.
I'm curious: Your comment implies that you find the title misleading.
What would you suggest instead?
I think adding ‘seemingly’ would cover the basis of violating the law of contradiction.
"How octopuses squeeze through an opening far smaller than the body diameter" is boring, verbose, and a quote from the article.
How about very small gaps instead of "too small gaps". Simple change to the title, but far more accurate and non-contradictory.
But would you still click on it?
I like it! I'd still click on yours.