Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby LilyPatToo » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:18 am

82_28, try in the spring/summer to attract a young one--they're intensely curious and not nearly as wary of humans as adult corvids are. The way I started my many years of relationships with jays was by befriending a lonely, terribly upset juvenile Scrub Jay. He'd been dumped in my yard by his parents, most likely because they knew there was year-round water and food there. Since I was building a garden shed, I was out back for hours every day and, after first loudly voicing his unhappiness, Merlin followed me around as I worked, watching everything I did. I tossed him some of my peanuts and that sealed our friendship--I had no idea back then how much they love them. Though I swear he needed companionship every bit as much as food.

And, a year later, he fledged his own babies in my yard and later dumped them there just as his parents had done to him. It's happened every spring since, so once you cultivate a friendship with one, you get quite an amazing return on your investment...and also a massive and ongoing roasted unsalted peanut bill, but it's worth it. Or maybe crows like some other treat--you might try asking how people befriended them on a board devoted to birding. And post what you find out, since we have both ravens and crows in our neighborhood and I'd love to get to know them.

It wasn't until years later that I learned (in a book called, I think, Bird Brains--great book!) that jays aren't born knowing how to construct a nest like other birds. Instead, they inspect other jays' nests on a social "visiting day" and spend the most time examining the nests with the healthiest, noisiest babies in them. Then they go off and incorporate what they've learned into their own nests...which may be why Merlin was so intrigued with my garden shed project. I had this crazy vision of a miniature copy of my shed high in a local redwood, complete with an arched-top door and a teeny loft :wink:

LilyPat
User avatar
LilyPatToo
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Oakland, CA USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby crikkett » Thu Oct 06, 2011 12:09 pm

LilyPatToo wrote: I had this crazy vision of a miniature copy of my shed high in a local redwood, complete with an arched-top door and a teeny loft :wink:

LilyPat


:lovehearts:
Bird people are awesome.

Speaking of "visiting day," an honest-to-Pete witchiepoo once visited my house and declared that I could serve The Goddess because some ancient priestesses kept birds. I never learned which or when.
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby Twyla LaSarc » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:15 pm

LilyPatToo wrote:
And, a year later, he fledged his own babies in my yard and later dumped them there just as his parents had done to him. It's happened every spring since, so once you cultivate a friendship with one, you get quite an amazing return on your investment...and also a massive and ongoing roasted unsalted peanut bill, but it's worth it. Or maybe crows like some other treat--you might try asking how people befriended them on a board devoted to birding. And post what you find out, since we have both ravens and crows in our neighborhood and I'd love to get to know them.


LilyPat


Crows love peanuts. My workplace is full of them (and seagulls) and i get to watch the progressions as they age- they are pretty much dumped in this large plaza full of food trucks and sloppy students to forage for themselves. I cringe when they pick up inedible garbage to taste it. A few days ago, one of the young crows was doggedly trying to extract a peanut from its shell, chasing the rolling morsel across the plaza. They are so funny when young, the deep 'caw' being a mere kazoo-like vocalization. They seem very social, I've seen masses of them heading to their bedding-down places at twilight.

I keep wondering what would happen if I started feeding the juvies. I'm not sure how housing and food services would react to me being followed by a bunch of begging avians. I would love it for sure...I once got a pigeon family at one of my last jobs to eat cornbread from my hand...:)

I was raised to love birds. My parents spent their sundays hiking and volunteering at the local bird banding station. I've been privleged to handle many birds and have even been bitten by a woodpecker (ouch).
“The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off”
User avatar
Twyla LaSarc
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: On the 8th hole
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby LilyPatToo » Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:41 pm

Cool to know crows like 'em too--thank you, Twyla :thumbsup If you begin interacting with young jays consistently over a few months, you can turn them into "lap birds" by throwing their peanuts closer and closer to where you're sitting. Before long, they'll land on your legs and lap to retrieve them. I have an ancient wooden chaise lounge near the shed and I think that makes it easier to get them to do it, since my legs are outstretched. Often, their first move is to perch on the toes of my clogs, then they graduate to hopping around on my legs and finally my lap.

Juvenile jay cries are really funny too. They practice what I call "territorial rattles" for months, perching in the tops of trees and making a strange rattling sound to warn off other birds from their territory. They also have a raucous, meant-to-be-pathetic "Feed me!" cry they make as babies that's accompanied by drooping, fluttering wing tips. Many of them continue to do this well into adulthood the second they see me at the back door. My hubby The Skeptic says I'm exceptionally well-trained, since, no matter what I'm in the middle of, a single call will send me to throw peanuts like an automaton :roll:

The biggest reward, for me, is that the Scrub Jays will sing to me. I've read that this is very rare with humans and that each bird's song is unique. It's also so soft (especially compared to their usual raucous cries) that background city noise can drown it out and the only way I can tell they're singing is the movement of their throats and the fact that they maintain eye contact through the entire song. There are at least 2 regional Scrub Jay languages, too--eastern and western, I think it was.

LilyPat
User avatar
LilyPatToo
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Oakland, CA USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby Twyla LaSarc » Sun Oct 09, 2011 3:37 pm

LilyPatToo wrote:Cool to know crows like 'em too--thank you, Twyla :thumbsup If you begin interacting with young jays consistently over a few months, you can turn them into "lap birds" by throwing their peanuts closer and closer to where you're sitting. Before long, they'll land on your legs and lap to retrieve them. I have an ancient wooden chaise lounge near the shed and I think that makes it easier to get them to do it, since my legs are outstretched. Often, their first move is to perch on the toes of my clogs, then they graduate to hopping around on my legs and finally my lap.

Juvenile jay cries are really funny too. They practice what I call "territorial rattles" for months, perching in the tops of trees and making a strange rattling sound to warn off other birds from their territory. They also have a raucous, meant-to-be-pathetic "Feed me!" cry they make as babies that's accompanied by drooping, fluttering wing tips. Many of them continue to do this well into adulthood the second they see me at the back door. My hubby The Skeptic says I'm exceptionally well-trained, since, no matter what I'm in the middle of, a single call will send me to throw peanuts like an automaton :roll:

The biggest reward, for me, is that the Scrub Jays will sing to me. I've read that this is very rare with humans and that each bird's song is unique. It's also so soft (especially compared to their usual raucous cries) that background city noise can drown it out and the only way I can tell they're singing is the movement of their throats and the fact that they maintain eye contact through the entire song. There are at least 2 regional Scrub Jay languages, too--eastern and western, I think it was.

LilyPat


They sound too cute. I've never heard their song beyond the usual vocalizations. That's amazing.

I've always loved jays. We don't seem to have many around here, but I will remember the peanuts once we get into a more conducive environment. :)
“The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off”
User avatar
Twyla LaSarc
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:50 pm
Location: On the 8th hole
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby LilyPatToo » Mon Oct 10, 2011 1:52 pm

Found that wonderful book I mentioned above at Amazon--Bird Brains: The Intelligence of Crows, Ravens, Magpies, and Jays by Candace Savage--though my own copy still hasn't surfaced. Among the suggested other reading on that page is a book on ravens that I'm coveting. We had a baby raven show up in our neighborhood a few years ago and now there's a small colony of them. They're not drawn by anything in my yard (guess I should be grateful there aren't many dead critter carcasses lying about) so I've not had a chance to tempt them with peanuts. Yet.

Did you know that one way to tell a crow from a raven from a distance is to look at the shape of the top of their beak? The raven has a slight "Roman nose" that curves down more close to the tip. They're also bulkier and more scruffy looking--crows tend to be sleek, with every feather in place. Ravens remind me of Columbo--unkempt, disheveled and deceptively clever.

LilyPat
User avatar
LilyPatToo
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Oakland, CA USA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby Aldebaran » Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:47 pm

Birds hold 'funerals' for dead
Matt Walker By Matt Walker Editor, BBC Nature

Some birds, it seems, hold funerals for their dead.

When western scrub jays encounter a dead bird, they call out to one another and stop foraging.

The jays then often fly down to the dead body and gather around it, scientists have discovered.

The behaviour may have evolved to warn other birds of nearby danger, report researchers in California, who have published the findings in the journal Animal Behaviour.

The revelation comes from a study by Teresa Iglesias and colleagues at the University of California, Davis, US.

They conducted experiments, placing a series of objects into residential back yards and observing how western scrub jays in the area reacted.

The objects included different coloured pieces of wood, dead jays, as well as mounted, stuffed jays and great horned owls, simulating the presence of live jays and predators.
Alarming reaction

The jays reacted indifferently to the wooden objects.

But when they spied a dead bird, they started making alarm calls, warning others long distances away.

The jays then gathered around the dead body, forming large cacophonous aggregations. The calls they made, known as "zeeps", "scolds" and "zeep-scolds", encouraged new jays to attend to the dead.

The jays also stopped foraging for food, a change in behaviour that lasted for over a day.

When the birds were fooled into thinking a predator had arrived, by being exposed to a mounted owl, they also gathered together and made a series of alarm calls.

They also swooped down at the supposed predator, to scare it off. But the jays never swooped at the body of a dead bird.

The birds also occasionally mobbed the stuffed jays; a behaviour they are known to do in the wild when they attack competitors or sick birds.

The fact that the jays didn't react to the wooden objects shows that it is not the novelty of a dead bird appearing that triggers the reaction.

The results show that "without witnessing the struggle and manner of death", the researchers write, the jays see the presence of a dead bird as information to be publicly shared, just as they do the presence of a predator.

Spreading the message that a dead bird is in the area helps safeguard other birds, alerting them to danger, and lowering their risk from whatever killed the original bird in the first place, the researchers say.

Other animals are known to take notice of their dead.

Giraffes and elephants, for example, have been recorded loitering around the body of a recently deceased close relative, raising the idea that animals have a mental concept of death, and may even mourn those that have passed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/19421217


The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness*
On this day of July 7, 2012, a prominent international group of cognitive neuroscientists,
neuropharmacologists, neurophysiologists, neuroanatomists and computational neuroscientists
gathered at The University of Cambridge to reassess the neurobiological substrates of conscious
experience and related behaviors in human and non-human animals. While comparative research on
this topic is naturally hampered by the inability of non-human animals, and often humans, to clearly
and readily communicate about their internal states, the following observations can be stated
unequivocally:

  • The field of Consciousness research is rapidly evolving. Abundant new techniques and strategies
    for human and non-human animal research have been developed. Consequently, more data is
    becoming readily available, and this calls for a periodic reevaluation of previously held
    preconceptions in this field. Studies of non-human animals have shown that homologous brain
    circuits correlated with conscious experience and perception can be selectively facilitated and
    disrupted to assess whether they are in fact necessary for those experiences. Moreover, in
    humans, new non-invasive techniques are readily available to survey the correlates of
    consciousness.
  • The neural substrates of emotions do not appear to be confined to cortical structures. In fact,
    subcortical neural networks aroused during affective states in humans are also critically
    important for generating emotional behaviors in animals. Artificial arousal of the same brain
    regions generates corresponding behavior and feeling states in both humans and non-human
    animals. Wherever in the brain one evokes instinctual emotional behaviors in non-human
    animals, many of the ensuing behaviors are consistent with experienced feeling states, including
    those internal states that are rewarding and punishing. Deep brain stimulation of these systems
    in humans can also generate similar affective states. Systems associated with affect are
    concentrated in subcortical regions where neural homologies abound. Young human and non-
    human animals without neocortices retain these brain-mind functions. Furthermore, neural
    circuits supporting behavioral/electrophysiological states of attentiveness, sleep and decision
    making appear to have arisen in evolution as early as the invertebrate radiation, being evident in
    insects and cephalopod mollusks (e.g., octopus).
  • Birds appear to offer, in their behavior, neurophysiology, and neuroanatomy a striking case of
    parallel evolution of consciousness. Evidence of near human-like levels of consciousness has
    been most dramatically observed in African grey parrots. Mammalian and avian emotional
    networks and cognitive microcircuitries appear to be far more homologous than previously
    thought. Moreover, certain species of birds have been found to exhibit neural sleep patterns
    similar to those of mammals, including REM sleep and, as was demonstrated in zebra finches,
    neurophysiological patterns, previously thought to require a mammalian neocortex. Magpies in
    particular have been shown to exhibit striking similarities to humans, great apes, dolphins, and
    elephants in studies of mirror self-recognition.
  • In humans, the effect of certain hallucinogens appears to be associated with a disruption in
    cortical feedforward and feedback processing. Pharmacological interventions in non-human
    animals with compounds known to affect conscious behavior in humans can lead to similar
    perturbations in behavior in non-human animals. In humans, there is evidence to suggest that
    awareness is correlated with cortical activity, which does not exclude possible contributions by
    subcortical or early cortical processing, as in visual awareness. Evidence that human and non-
    human animal emotional feelings arise from homologous subcortical brain networks provide
    compelling evidence for evolutionarily shared primal affective qualia.
We declare the following: “The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from
experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the
neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with
the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that
humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-
human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also
possess these neurological substrates.”

* The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness was written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van
Swinderen, Philip Low and Christof Koch. The Declaration was publicly proclaimed in Cambridge, UK, on July 7, 2012, at the Francis Crick
Memorial Conference on Consciousness in Human and non-Human Animals, at Churchill College, University of Cambridge, by Low, Edelman and
Koch. The Declaration was signed by the conference participants that very evening, in the presence

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeD ... usness.pdf
http://fcmconference.org/



Animal Consciousness
Elephant painting/animal rights/animal "souls"
Dolphin Rights
User avatar
Aldebaran
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby Hammer of Los » Mon Sep 03, 2012 10:08 am

...

The birds are always watching me.

They sing to me both day and night.

They know me, I think.

They know who and what I am.

But some birds have a special place in my affections.

I love the Magpie.

The pie bald one.

The little thief.

Two of them are my especial familiars.

Yet on the day of my return from my recent holiday, I saw seven magpies in my garden.

Obviously, they were there to greet me on my return.

Who knows the ancient rhyme?

A secret?

A box without hinges.

Where lieth the unborn?

...
Hammer of Los
 
Posts: 3309
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 4:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby cptmarginal » Tue Oct 01, 2013 3:08 am

This is a new feature article in Smithsonian Magazine; it's mostly bullshit

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-a ... 33882.html

The CIA’s Most Highly-Trained Spies Weren’t Even Human
As a former trainer reveals, the U.S. government deployed nonhuman operatives—ravens, pigeons, even cats—to spy on cold war adversaries
By Tom Vanderbilt

There would be a rustle of oily black feathers as a raven settled on the window ledge of a once-grand apartment building in some Eastern European capital. The bird would pace across the ledge a few times but quickly depart. In an apartment on the other side of the window, no one would shift his attention from the briefing papers or the chilled vodka set out on a table. Nor would anything seem amiss in the jagged piece of gray slate resting on the ledge, seemingly jetsam from the roof of an old and unloved building. Those in the apartment might be dismayed to learn, however, that the slate had come not from the roof but from a technical laboratory at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In a small cavity at the slate’s center was an electronic transmitter powerful enough to pick up their conversation. The raven that transported it to the ledge was no random city bird, but a U.S.-trained intelligence asset.

Half a world away from the murk of the cold war, it would be a typical day at the I.Q. Zoo, one of the touristic palaces that dotted the streets of Hot Springs, Arkansas, in the 1960s. With their vacationing parents inca tow, children would squeal as they watched chickens play baseball, macaws ride bicycles, ducks drumming and pigs pawing at pianos. You would find much the same in any number of mom-and-pop theme parks or on television variety shows of the era. But chances are that if an animal had been trained to do something whimsically human, the animal—or the technique—came from Hot Springs.

Two scenes, seemingly disjointed: the John le Carré shadows against the bright midway lights of county-fair Americana. But wars make strange bedfellows, and in one of the most curious, if little-known, stories of the cold war, the people involved in making poultry dance or getting cows to play bingo were also involved in training animals, under government contract, for defense and intelligence work. The same methods that lay behind Priscilla the Fastidious Pig or the Educated Hen informed projects such as training ravens to deposit and retrieve objects, pigeons to warn of enemy ambushes, or even cats to eavesdrop on human conversations. At the center of this Venn diagram were two acolytes of the psychologist B.F. Skinner, plus Bob Bailey, the first director of training for the Navy’s pioneering dolphin program. The use of animals in military intelligence dates back to ancient Greece, but the work that this trio undertook in the 1960s promised an entirely new level of sophistication, as if James Bond’s Q had met Marlin Perkins.

“We never found an animal we could not train,” says Bailey, 76, who in his career has done everything from teaching dolphins to detect submarines to inventing the Bird Brain, an apparatus that enabled a person to play tick-tack-toe against a chicken. (One is in the collection of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History.) “Never,” he repeats, as we sit in the book-cluttered living room of his modest lakefront house in Hot Springs. “Never.”

As I try to summon particularly challenging creatures—Alligators? Moles? Crustaceans?—he asks, “Do you know who Susan Garrett is?” I do not. Garrett, it turns out, is a world champion trainer in the sport of dog agility. A few years ago, Bailey was teaching a course on stimulus control for her students. His stimulus was a laser pointer. One day, he was in the bathroom and saw a spider. “I looked down at this spider and said, hmmm.” He took out his laser, turned it on, and gently blew on the spider. “Spiders don’t like wind—it blows their web down,” he says. “They pull themselves down into the smallest size they can get and hunker down.”

Turn on laser. Blow. Turn on laser. Blow. Bailey did this at several intervals during the day. “By the time I finished all I had to do is turn that light on,” he says, and the spider would go defensive. He returned to the classroom where Garrett was lecturing and announced: “You’ve got a trained spider in your bathroom.”

This is Psych 101: Pavlovian, or “classical,” conditioning. The laser is a conditioned stimulus, the breath an unconditioned stimulus. Over time, the spider so associates one with the other that the mere appearance of the former is enough to trigger a “conditioned response.”

While Pavlov plays a part in our story—“I have a saying in the training business,” Bailey says, “Pavlov is always on your shoulder”—the real inspiration is B.F. Skinner, the Harvard University psychologist who was, in the middle of the 20th century, the most cited scholar of the human mind after Freud. Skinner popularized “operant conditioning,” a practice based less on primal reflex responses and more on getting animals (including humans) to do things voluntarily, based on cues in the environment. When “behavior is followed by a consequence,” Skinner wrote, “the nature of the consequence modifies the organism’s tendency to repeat the behavior in the future.” In his famous operant-conditioning chamber, or “box,” an animal learns to associate an action with a reward. He favored pigeons, which received food for pecking at certain buttons.

During World War II, Skinner received defense funding to research a pigeon-based homing device for missiles. (The birds would be housed in the nose cone; their pecking would activate steering engines.) It was never deployed, but the project captured the imagination of two of his graduate students, Keller Breland and his wife, Marian. They left Skinner’s lab in 1947 and went into business in Minnesota as Animal Behavior Enterprises, or ABE. Their main client was General Mills, for whom they trained chickens and other animals for shows advertising General Mills feed at county fairs.

Their business gradually expanded, to zoos and theme parks and appearances on “The Tonight Show” and “Wild Kingdom.” They trained a slew of animals for TV commercials, including Buck Bunny, the coin-depositing rabbit protagonist of a Coast Federal Savings Bank commercial that set a record for repeat airings over two decades. In 1955, in their new home of Hot Springs, Arkansas, the Brelands opened the I.Q. Zoo, where visitors would pay, in essence, to watch Skinnerian conditioning in action—even if in the form of basketball-playing raccoons.

The I.Q. Zoo was both a tourist attraction and a proving ground for systems of operant conditioning. The Brelands didn’t just become America’s pre-eminent commercial animal trainers, they also published their observations in scholarly journals like American Psychologist. Everyone from Walt Disney to Florida’s Marineland wanted their advice. It is thus little surprise that they were invited to the Naval Air Weapons Station at China Lake, California, to address a new Navy program on the training of marine mammals for defense work, headed by Bob Bailey. The fact that China Lake, on the western edge of the Mojave Desert, has neither water nor marine mammals is the sort of detail that does not seem out of place in a story like this.

***

Bailey’s tenure at China Lake was not his first stint in the desert. As an undergraduate at UCLA in the 1950s, he was hired by the School of Medicine to collect and photograph animals. In his long hours laying traps for kangaroo rats out near Palmdale, he noticed a patch of alfalfa.

“Alfalfa in the middle of nowhere attracts rabbits,” he says. “Any time you have rabbits out in the middle of the Mojave, you’re going to have coyotes.” He found a den nearby and began to notice that the coyotes, upon setting out, would head toward one of two fields. Curious to see if he could condition their behavior, he began placing dead rabbits along the paths he wanted the coyotes to choose. After some months he found that 85 percent of the time, he could get the coyotes to choose the path he designated. He then began tying white strips of cloth near the rabbits. Soon, those white strips alone were enough to direct the coyotes. “It was me,” Bailey says. “That was just me.”

As he earned his bachelor of science degree, he became a kind of part-time animal-behavior boffin. After a brief stint in the Army, with the 525 Military Intelligence Brigade, he found himself back at UCLA, employed as a researcher at the medical school. One day he noticed a flier advertising for a director of training of the Navy’s new dolphin program, which would develop methods of training marine mammals to perform tasks ranging from detecting and clearing mines to retrieving tools. He applied for the job and eventually got it. Any number of scholars were brought out to consult on the program—people like Gregory Bateson, the English anthropologist who was once married to Margaret Mead, and, of course, the Brelands. As Bailey conducted his research, including a quasi-covert training program involving search and detection tasks in the open ocean, he grew increasingly disenchanted with research directives coming from China Lake that focused more on psychology than on intelligence work. “I could see very quickly where these animals would be really useful,” he says, “and yet people who were involved, we would joke, wanted to ‘talk to the dolphins.’”

In 1965, Bailey agreed to join the Brelands and Animal Behavior Enterprises in Hot Springs. Suddenly he found himself in the entertainment business. “I was designing sets, building sets, had to learn how to write a show script,” he says. Training animals “was the easy part.” By now, ABE had more than 50 employees and a full-blown systematic approach to animal training. “We had file drawers full of training protocols,” Bailey says. “You want a macaw to ride a bicycle?” The trainer would go to the front office, ask a secretary for the bicycle-riding protocols. “They’d ask: Was it for cockatoos or macaws? It’s different.”

That June, Keller Breland died of a heart attack at the age of 50, and the day-to-day running of the business largely fell to Bailey. More than a decade later, he and Marian married. “Marian was a softhearted person,” he says. (She died in 2001.) “Business is pretty hard-nosed.”

While at ABE, Bailey designed the Bird Brain, which housed a chicken that would appear to engage the patron in a game of tick-tack-toe. (In reality, a circuit board chose the chicken’s squares; when the chicken retired to its “thinkin’ booth” during play, it was pressing a button in response to a light triggered by the human’s moves.) The game was immensely popular (if not without criticism, Bailey says, by the fledgling People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), though it was rigged so the human—even B.F. Skinner himself—never won. “We built three pieces of equipment where the chicken could lose,” Bailey says. “It didn’t improve our income at all.”

But by then, ABE had a sideline: Not long after Bailey joined the firm, it had begun hearing from various government agencies: the CIA and the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground and Limited Warfare Laboratories. “They came to us to solve problems,” Bailey says. “It was the height of the cold war.”

***

A raven, in espionage parlance, is a male agent tasked with seducing intelligence targets. But avian ravens can be spies as well. When Bailey describes the Western raven, he sounds as if he’s talking about Jason Bourne. “It operates alone, and it does very well alone,” he says. Western ravens are adept at pattern recognition. “They could learn to respond to classes of objects,” he says. “If you’ve got a big desk and a little desk, you could train it to always go to the small one.” They can also carry quite a load. “These things could pick up weights, heavy packages, even file folders,” he says. “It was incredible to watch these ravens carry a load in their beaks that would have defeated an ordinary bird.” They also, he says, could be trained to open file drawers.

Robert Wallace, who headed the CIA’s Office of Technical Services in the 1990s, says the use of animals in intelligence has a long history. “Animals can go places people can’t. Animals are unalerting,” he told me. “The other side of the coin is that although animals can be trained, they have to be constantly trained. The upkeep, care and maintenance is significant.”

It is striking that even as the television program “Flipper” was making dolphins popular with American children, the creatures were becoming embroiled in the cold war arms race. As a partially declassified 1976 CIA document on naval dolphin training notes, the Soviets were “also assessing and replicating U.S. systems while possibly developing countermeasures to certain U.S. systems.” (The Navy still has its Marine Mammal Program, whose website notes that it “is an accredited member of the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums, an international organization committed to the care and conservation of marine mammals.”)

Even bugs—the kind with legs—were considered by the military establishment. “The Use of Arthropods as Personnel Detectors,” a 1972 report by the Army’s Limited Warfare Laboratory in Aberdeen, Maryland, summarizes research on the possibility of exploiting the “sensory capabilities of insects”—bedbugs, mosquitoes and ticks among them—“for the detection of people.” Scientists ruled out lice (“in a preliminary test they simply crawled about at random”) but saw “feasible” promise in the mosquito Anopheles quadrimaculatus, which “is normally at rest and will fly at the approach of a host,” and so might be used “to detect the approach of people during darkness.”

One of the first projects Bailey says he worked on involved creatures that, in many people’s minds, are beyond training: cats. While cats have a shorter history of domestication than dogs, Bailey insists it is “absolutely not true” that they cannot be trained.

In what has come to be called the “acoustic kitty” project, the CIA’s Directorate of Science and Technology proposed using a cat as a listening device. In their book Spycraft, the CIA’s Wallace and co-author H. Keith Melton write that the agency was targeting an Asian head of state for surveillance, and that “during the target’s long strategy sessions with his aides, cats wandered in and out of the meeting area.” The theory, says Bailey, was that no one would pay attention to the animals’ comings and goings.

“We found that we could condition the cat to listen to voices,” says Bailey. “We have no idea how we did it. But...we found that the cat would more and more listen to people’s voices, and listen less to other things.” Working with Robin Michelson, a California otolaryngologist and one of the inventors of the human cochlear implant, the team turned the cat into a transmitter—with, says Bailey, a wire running from the cat’s inner ear to a battery and instrument cluster implanted in its rib cage. The cat’s movements could be directed—left, right, straight ahead—with ultrasonic sound.

The fate of this asset has become serio-comic lore, obscured by conflicting accounts and CIA classification. Jeffrey Richelson, in his book The Wizards of Langley, quotes ex-CIA official Victor Marchetti on the program’s demise during a field trial: “They put [the cat] out of the van, and a taxi comes and runs him over. There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead!”

But Wallace disputes that. “It was a serious project,” he says. “The acoustic kitty was not killed by getting run over by a taxicab.” His source? “The guy who was a principal in the project.” Wallace says Bailey’s name is not familiar to him, though he adds that by the time he joined the agency, “the animal work was really historic.”

Bailey says ABE’s records were destroyed in a 1989 fire, and the CIA declined my request under the Freedom of Information Act for documents relating to animal training for intelligence activities, noting that even “the fact of the existence or nonexistence of requested records is currently and properly classified.” A CIA press officer told me, “Unfortunately, we cannot help you with this.” Thus the agency’s only official word on the project appears in “Views on Trained Cats,” a heavily redacted document in the National Security Archive at George Washington University. While acknowledging that “cats can indeed be trained to move short distances,” it concludes that “the program would not lend itself in a practical sense to our highly specialized needs.”

During the 1960s and 1970s, as dancing chickens entertained crowds at the I.Q. Zoo, Bailey and a handful of his colleagues were undertaking intelligence scenarios nearby. “We had a 270-acre farm,” he says. “We built towns. Like a movie set, there’d be only fronts.” Without disclosing who they were working for, Bailey had his team rearrange the town according to photographs they were given. There were also field demonstrations—including one at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. “‘This is the room we want to get to,’” Bailey says he was told. “ ‘Can you get your raven up there to deposit a device, and can we listen?’ Yes, we can.” The bird would be conditioned, via a laser spotter, to pick out the room. At Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Bailey created a so-called “squab squad,” pigeons that would fly ahead of a column and signal the presence of enemy soldiers by landing. In tests, the pigeons, says Bailey, thwarted more than 45 attempts by Special Forces troops to ambush a convoy. But, as was so often the case, field operations revealed a problem: There was no way to retrieve the pigeons if they saw no enemy troops.

When I ask Bailey if any of the various animal projects were ever used in real-world scenarios, he turns uncharacteristically laconic. But then a thin smile cracks his face. “We got the ravens into places. We got the cats into places,” he says. “Usually using diplomatic pouches.” He says he carried a raven aboard a commercial flight, against regulations. “It was in a map case under the front seat,” he says, “and every now and then the raven would make a noise.” He makes a low guttural groaning. “I’d be in my seat and I’d go like this,” he says, squirming.

But the nexus between the shadows and the midway proved brittle: When the Senate Select Committee to Study Government Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (also known as the Church Committee, for chairman Frank Church of Idaho) was formed in 1975 to investigate abuses of power at several U.S. intelligence agencies, including the CIA, ABE decided to end its intelligence work. And in 1990, the I.Q. Zoo served up its last match of chicken tick-tack-toe.

Over lunch at McClard’s Bar-B-Q (a favorite of former President Bill Clinton, who grew up in Hot Springs), Bailey notes that animal intelligence work of the sort he did has been rendered largely superfluous by technology. “Today, all you have to do is illuminate someone with an infrared laser and pick up the scatter back from that, and you can listen to their conversation without any trouble at all,” he says. “You don’t need a cat.”

But that doesn’t mean Bailey is done. He’s been working with security agencies in Europe, he says, on training dogs, via acoustic signals, to perform any number of security tasks. “There’s nothing that can run up stairs like a dog,” he says. “It has a billion years of evolution behind it.”
cptmarginal
 
Posts: 2741
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: Gordita Beach
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby conniption » Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:31 pm

Crow rescue

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ_3BN0m7S8

yalensis says:
August 2, 2014 at 5:54 am


Interesting scene captured on video from the Budapesht zoo, and please nobody try to make any Aesopian or political metaphors from this:

A bear is going about his business in the bear pen.
Several crows can be seen bopping about inside the pen, they probably feed on some of the bear’s scraps.
One unlucky crow makes a near-fatal mistake and falls into the pool.
The bear, using his innate “fish-catching” instinct, swats the crow out of the pool and lifts him out of the water using his (the bear’s) teeth.
The bear then deposits the crow onto the land and immediately loses all interest in it.
The traumatized crow eventually comes to himself, he looks shell-shocked but will probably survive this ordeal.

2 schools of thought among the commentators of the video:
(1) The bear acted on his innate instinct to catch fish, but lost interest as soon as he realized the crow wasn’t a fish.
(2) The bear was acting magnanimously and knowingly saved the life of a crow, with whom he might have been friends.

I go with (2) because the bear was clearly used to seeing crows hanging around his pen, and there is no way a bear is going to mistake a crow for a fish, even in the water. Although I suppose a bear might feel compelled to swat at something in the water, the same way a cat cannot resist swatting at a ball of string.

On the other hand, it is likely that the bear might have gotten to know some of the crows individually and considered them to be companions in his captivity. He leads a lonely life in his pen, and the crows might have become his friends.

LInguistic sidebar: I don’t know any Hungarian words, but I notice from the cries of the children in the video that the Hungarian word for “crow” is the same as the Slavic one: “vran” (Russian “vorona”, of course, but at base it’s actually “vran” or “varn”.)


colliemum says:
August 2, 2014 at 6:10 am

Nice find!
I go with (2) as well – because corvids (that’s crows and ravens) are known in the wild to accompany predators such as bears, and move in to feed on what they kill. It’s documented definitely for wolves and ravens, and since both bears and corvids are intelligent, there’s no reason not to assume the bear ‘knew’ that crow if it’s a regular visitor in his pen.
Very handsome bear, btw!



yalensis says:
August 2, 2014 at 7:24 am

I would even take it a step further: Not only was the bear magnanimous (not to mention a hero for saving the raven’s life), but also showed a laudable streak of sensitivity.

That is to say, after he dumped the bedraggled bird onto dry land, he discretely just moved away and left the raven to sort himself out, instead of, say, poking at him, or making fun of him.
The raven must have felt humiliated, and the bear didn’t want to rub it in, so he just pretended like nothing had happened.

I don’t think I am anthropomorphizing, because most humans would not even show such senstitivity to a fellow creature in distress. They would probably laugh at him and show his misadventure all over youtube, to make sure the world got to laugh too.


colliemum says:
August 2, 2014 at 8:01 am

Agreed – especially with your last point!

We don’t know how long the bear and the bird have been together, loosely speaking, but corvids can become quite old, certainly over ten years, so they may indeed have formed some sort of bond over the years. I wouldn’t even put it past the bear to recognise the bird by its scent: bears have an even better sense of smell than dogs, it is said. Polar bears certainly do.
I think it’s a mistake to assume animals, especially the higher vertebrates, have no feelings, just because they don’t express them in a way we don’t understand.
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Crows' fabled ingenuity shines in intelligence tests.

Postby jakell » Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:45 pm

From John Michael Greer's 'The Next Ten Billion Years':

...One hundred million years from now:

Retro-rockets fire and fall silent as the ungainly craft settles down on the surface of the Moon. After feverish final checks, the hatch is opened, and two figures descend onto the lunar surface. They are bipeds, but not even remotely human; instead, they belong to Earth’s third intelligent species. They are distantly descended from the crows of our time, though they look no more like crows than you look like the tree shrews of the middle Cretaceous. Since you have a larynx rather than a syrinx, you can’t even begin to pronounce what they call themselves, so we’ll call them corvins.

Earth’s second intelligent species, whom we’ll call cyons after their raccoon ancestors, are long gone. They lasted a little more than eight million years before the changes of an unstable planet sent them down the long road to extinction; they never got that deeply into technology, though their political institutions made the most sophisticated human equivalents look embarrassingly crude. The corvins are another matter. Some twist of inherited psychology left them with a passion for heights and upward movement; they worked out the basic principles of the hot air balloon before they got around to inventing the wheel, and balloons, gliders, and corvin-carrying kites play much the same roles in their earliest epic literature that horses and chariots play in ours.

As corvin societies evolved more complex technologies, eyes gazed upwards from soaring tower-cities at the moon, the perch of perches set high above the world. All that was needed to make those dreams a reality was petroleum, and a hundred million years is more than enough time for the Earth to restock her petroleum reserves—especially if that period starts off with an oceanic anoxic event that stashes gigatons of carbon in marine sediments. Thus it was inevitable that, sooner or later, the strongest of the great corvin kith-assemblies would devote its talents and wealth to the task of reaching the moon.

The universe has a surprise in store for the corvins, though. Their first moon landing included among its goals the investigation of some odd surface features, too small to be seen clearly by Earth-based equipment. That first lander thus set down on a flat lunar plain that, a very long time ago, was called the Sea of Tranquillity, and so it was that the stunned corvin astronauts found themselves facing the unmistakable remains of a spacecraft that arrived on the moon in the unimaginably distant past.

A few equivocal traces buried in terrestrial sediments had suggested already to corvin loremasters that another intelligent species might have lived on the Earth before them, though the theory was dismissed by most as wild speculation. The scattered remnants on the Moon confirmed them, and made it hard for even the most optimistic corvins to embrace the notion that some providence guaranteed the survival of intelligent species. The curious markings on some of the remains, which some loremasters suggested might be a mode of visual communication, resisted all attempts at decipherment, and very little was ever learnt for certain about the enigmatic ancient species that left its mark on the Moon.

Even so, it will be suggested long afterwards that the stark warning embodied in those long-abandoned spacecraft played an important role in convincing corvin societies to rein in the extravagant use of petroleum and other nonrenewable resources, though it also inspired hugely expensive and ultimately futile attempts to achieve interstellar migration—for some reason the corbins never got into the quest for fusion power or artificial intelligence. One way or another, though, the corvins turned out to be the most enduring of Earth’s intelligent species, and more than 28 million years passed before their day finally ended....


I had assumed that JMG had picked the Crows at random, just like the Cyons and the Corbicules, but maybe not (some of you may like to read the whole article):

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/the-next-ten-billion-years.html
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests