Dive boat operators face charges of illegally feeding sharks in state waters
- Thread starter iluvtheocean
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
I think it's both. I would love to see the reaction of putting in the marker without the fish in it. That would show ONLY learned behavior.
Still, I'm not expecting to read the Sharky equivalent of Anna Karenina or get a text from them to show how much smarter they might be than mere humans.
Still, I'm not expecting to read the Sharky equivalent of Anna Karenina or get a text from them to show how much smarter they might be than mere humans.
I don't know if they are intelligent, but everything I saw in the video can be explained by instinct.
I think there is a level of intelligence between a rock and going to the moon. You have the same bias as most humans--if the intelligence you see is not like human intelligence, it cannot be intelligence.
I am flabbergasted that you are flabbergasted. What I said is not the rantings of an extreme lunatic. I wish I could get back to those marine biologists to whom I was speaking when they explained it all to me. I am sure they will be equally flabbergasted to learn that everything they learned when they got their Ph.Ds was wrong.
As an educator's educator, you might want to re-read the post. He's not saying that fish are more intelligent than humans. He says that fish are for more credit than we give them CREDIT for.
A bit awkwardly worded, admittedly, but he did not make the claim that fish are smarter than people.
- Messages
- 5,884
- Reaction score
- 2,998
- Location
- Lake Worth, Florida, United States
- # of dives
- I'm a Fish!
I don't know....Instinct implies genetic pre-wiring will create a specific response to a stimulus like blood or sound or smell in the water.
So each of these sharks and fish were showing the expected instinctive response of keen INTEREST in the food.....
But the visual cue or the time of day are not pre-wired, they are learned behaviors--and not all fish or animals are smart enough to learn feeding times--though most higher level predators are.
And then the orderly behavior suggests they KNOW they will be fed, so there is none of the more instinctive response to rush in and be first to the food.
This goes to one of the research issues in the wild on shark feeds, being what is expected to happen if some of the smaller sharks become frustrated each time divers show up and feeding takes place, because the larger dominant sharks remain comfortably in the "feeding zone", and the smaller ones low in the pecking order, are forced out--but the assumption is that they would desire to eat, their attempts to get food are frustrated, and the expectation exists that aggression should result if this happen enough.....
So how much is enough--a learning situation in itself....a dozen times, a hundred times? and if aggression does occur, would it be directed at the larger sharks , or other smaller sharks or fish in the area, or at divers?
So each of these sharks and fish were showing the expected instinctive response of keen INTEREST in the food.....
But the visual cue or the time of day are not pre-wired, they are learned behaviors--and not all fish or animals are smart enough to learn feeding times--though most higher level predators are.
And then the orderly behavior suggests they KNOW they will be fed, so there is none of the more instinctive response to rush in and be first to the food.
This goes to one of the research issues in the wild on shark feeds, being what is expected to happen if some of the smaller sharks become frustrated each time divers show up and feeding takes place, because the larger dominant sharks remain comfortably in the "feeding zone", and the smaller ones low in the pecking order, are forced out--but the assumption is that they would desire to eat, their attempts to get food are frustrated, and the expectation exists that aggression should result if this happen enough.....
So how much is enough--a learning situation in itself....a dozen times, a hundred times? and if aggression does occur, would it be directed at the larger sharks , or other smaller sharks or fish in the area, or at divers?
I see that my syntax must have been a bit too much. Here is the sentence I wrote.
I think animals in general are far more intelligent than we humans, with our smug sense of superiority as the "only thinking animal," give them credit.
Notice that there is an adjectival prepositional phrase set off by commas within the sentence. It interrupts the main clause and I guess causes too much confusion. To help you understand, I will remind you that such phrases are non-restrictive and can be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning. This is what is left when you do that:
I think animals in general are far more intelligent than we humans give them credit.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
But everyone knows that sharks are attracted to yum yum yellow.
That's the real problem with our knowledge of sharks: most of it is simply apocryphal. We pawn off our myths as knowledge, our flawed experiments as science and we defend them with a jihadic passion.
The Chairman
Chairman of the Board
Your legs must be strong from jumping to conclusions so often. The problem is your overly wordy sentence and my less than optimal eyesight. It looked like a period to these old eyes and I wasn't expecting such clumsy phrasing. My bad, but syntax really had nothing to do with it. In any event: Thanks for the clarification.
umm... My response was to netdoc, and I see that I mistyped the word "Credit" for the word "intelligent" for it's first usage in my summary. If you insert it correctly into my statement in my previous post, it will read:
Should read: He says that fish are far more intelligent than we give them CREDIT for.
Does read: He says that fish are far more credit than we give them CREDIT for.
In short, sir, I was supporting your post. And your incorrect assumption does not impress me, no matter how eloquently stated.
If my typo made my sentence completely unintelligible to you, I apologize.
Similar threads
