Animal Minds (Animals)

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, May 26, 2011, 22:54 (4690 days ago)

Here's one area where dhw and I have much in common: Animals. The first 15 minutes of this podcast contain one of the most... amazing human/animal stories I've ever heard in my life.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds

by dhw, Friday, May 27, 2011, 14:47 (4690 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: Here's one area where dhw and I have much in common: Animals. The first 15 minutes of this podcast contain one of the most... amazing human/animal stories I've ever heard in my life.-Matt, I think there are many areas where you and I have much in common. But I guess it's the differences that keep us both on our toes!-Many thanks for this really amazing piece. Of course the experts have to try and pooh-pooh it, but the divers themselves seem in no doubt of the whale's intentions. Why are so many humans incapable of recognizing the fact that in order to survive, other animals have to have social and communicative skills, to form individual relationships, to feel things both physically and psychologically? These skills and feelings are not human inventions but a shared inheritance from our common ancestors. You could hardly ask for a more heart-warming illustration.

Animal Minds

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Friday, May 27, 2011, 18:46 (4690 days ago) @ dhw

MATT: Here's one area where dhw and I have much in common: Animals. The first 15 minutes of this podcast contain one of the most... amazing human/animal stories I've ever heard in my life.
> 
> Matt, I think there are many areas where you and I have much in common. But I guess it's the differences that keep us both on our toes!
> 
> Many thanks for this really amazing piece. Of course the experts have to try and pooh-pooh it, but the divers themselves seem in no doubt of the whale's intentions. Why are so many humans incapable of recognizing the fact that in order to survive, other animals have to have social and communicative skills, to form individual relationships, to feel things both physically and psychologically? These skills and feelings are not human inventions but a shared inheritance from our common ancestors. You could hardly ask for a more heart-warming illustration.-I don't know if you listened to the *entire* broadcast, but when the experts are allowed to move to opinion, they opine that clearly animals possess some kind of sentient consciousness... we just have no way to prove it beyond becoming one ourselves. But that whale story... its making me take vegetarianism seriously for the first time. What right do I have to declare myself superior when I clearly cannot *know?* The actions of that whale are so clearly deliberate. Thanks? Maybe. I think heartfelt comraderie.. attachment... maybe even love? I don't tink its fair to "humanize" in the sense that a whale feels in the same way I do, but clearly this MEANT something to the whale... later in the same show there is an instance where a seal protects a diver. I'd check it out...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds

by dhw, Sunday, June 05, 2011, 15:51 (4681 days ago) @ dhw

An article in today's Sunday Times summarizes a 35-year observational study that tracked the behaviour of about 2500 African elephants. It describes the range of their emotions, their ability to use tools, and their empathy for one another. They have been seen removing branches and pulling out tranquillizer darts from another's body, wedging a weakened elephant to stop her from falling, rescuing calves, grieving, and also communicating through body language ... entwining trunks, jostling each other, playing games. There are often lengthy discussions before they settle on a route, and they co-operate on different tasks. -Professor Fritz Vollrath from Oxford cautions against reading human motives and emotions into elephant behaviour: "This is a really exciting area in which we know very little. From these observations, it seems elephants have evolved comparable coping strategies to your own. [...] The question is, 'Are they really identical to us?' I agree that elephants behave as if they have compassion or empathy, but do they have it like ours? We must be aware that behaviour we might interpret as showing humanlike emotions might have arisen for completely different reasons."-I'd rather trust those who have studied the subject for 35 years than someone who confesses that he (whom he calls "we") knows very little about it. Of course most people are unlikely to say elephants are "identical" to us, and I doubt if humans will ever be able to get right inside the elephant mind, so the professor's scepticism is nice and safe. But the tacit assumption that human emotions are somehow different from animal emotions, even if the behaviour, reactions and consequences are the same, seems to me to smack of the age-old belief that humans are "special". Why are some people so reluctant to accept that if we are all descended from common ancestors, we might also have many features in common, including the positive ones we would like to claim as our exclusive property.

Animal Minds

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, June 06, 2011, 01:09 (4680 days ago) @ dhw

Why are some people so reluctant to accept that if we are all descended from common ancestors, we might also have many features in common, including the positive ones we would like to claim as our exclusive property.-You will broker no argument here.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds

by dhw, Tuesday, June 07, 2011, 08:32 (4679 days ago) @ xeno6696

dhw: Why are some people so reluctant to accept that if we are all descended from common ancestors, we might also have many features in common, including the positive ones we would like to claim as our exclusive property?-MATT: You will broker no argument here.-Nevertheless, I have taken another step on your recommendation, and have listened to the rest of the "whale" broadcast. Thank you for persisting.
 
The love affair between the photographer and the leopard seal is interesting, though I'm not sure that either of them is entirely right in the head, but what really caught my attention was the discussion on spindle cells. These are special neurons which at one time were thought to be unique to humans, and which are associated with cognitive skills and, according to the neurologist on the programme, maybe also with empathy. It appears that they are also found in creatures such as hump-backed whales and elephants. If we manifest the same behaviour and we share the same brain cells, what grounds can there be for doubting ... as many humans do ... that we share the same feelings?

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 09, 2011, 23:51 (4676 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Why are some people so reluctant to accept that if we are all descended from common ancestors, we might also have many features in common, including the positive ones we would like to claim as our exclusive propertyIf we manifest the same behaviour and we share the same brain cells, what grounds can there be for doubting ... as many humans do ... that we share the same feelings?-The following has one moral. Play only with satiated cheetahs:-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246886/Pictured-Three-cheetahs-spare-tiny-antelopes-life--play-instead.html

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 11, 2011, 14:53 (4675 days ago) @ David Turell

Some chimps can reason as well as four-year-old kids:-http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html-But we are "NOT A Chimp"; read the book. Our DNA is really 17% different when all arrangements of genes and other entities in the genome are studied statistically.

Animal Minds

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 11, 2011, 15:11 (4675 days ago) @ David Turell

Some chimps can reason as well as four-year-old kids:
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html
&... 
> But we are "NOT A Chimp"; read the book. Our DNA is really 17% different when all arrangements of genes and other entities in the genome are studied statistically.-In all fairness, you don't see "chimps are human" in the literature. You see "closest living relative."-Also, in light of some new studies done in the last 40 years since Adler's book with other primates--his thesis is seriously undermined.-More to come...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Saturday, June 11, 2011, 17:14 (4675 days ago) @ xeno6696

Some chimps can reason as well as four-year-old kids:
> > 
> > http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html
&... > 
> > But we are "NOT A Chimp"; read the book. Our DNA is really 17% different when all arrangements of genes and other entities in the genome are studied statistically.
> 
> In all fairness, you don't see "chimps are human" in the literature. You see "closest living relative."
> 
> Also, in light of some new studies done in the last 40 years since Adler's book with other primates--his thesis is seriously undermined.-
I'm content to do regular battle with you over animal minds. They have midget mentation. Find me a Mozart moose or a Bonobo Beethoven. They do have minimal reasoning capacity, and can be aware of themselves. But aware that they are aware, and write books about it. Don't be silly. We are different in kind. There is your challenge! We were meant to be king of the heap.

Animal Minds

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Saturday, June 11, 2011, 23:20 (4674 days ago) @ David Turell

Some chimps can reason as well as four-year-old kids:
> > > 
> > > http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-chimps-capable-insightful-ability.html
&... > > 
> > > But we are "NOT A Chimp"; read the book. Our DNA is really 17% different when all arrangements of genes and other entities in the genome are studied statistically.
> > 
> > In all fairness, you don't see "chimps are human" in the literature. You see "closest living relative."
> > 
> > Also, in light of some new studies done in the last 40 years since Adler's book with other primates--his thesis is seriously undermined.
> 
> 
> I'm content to do regular battle with you over animal minds. They have midget mentation. Find me a Mozart moose or a Bonobo Beethoven. They do have minimal reasoning capacity, and can be aware of themselves. But aware that they are aware, and write books about it. Don't be silly. We are different in kind. There is your challenge! We were meant to be king of the heap.-I have incredibly immense problems with your last statement here. It is Machiavellan. -There's 2 podcasts I'll find that discuss an old chimp named Lucy who was raised wit humans. (The kicker there was that she was able to combine words for new meanings.) A newer one is a current project at IA State where Bonobos are actually conversing wth us in english.-The ability for language is key to human intelligence. Adler's book never once tackled apes capable of deriving new meanings, which while capped compared to an adult human, the very fact that you can say a chimp is as intelligent as a 4yr old undermines your own argument.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 12, 2011, 01:14 (4674 days ago) @ xeno6696

We are different in kind. There is your challenge! We were meant to be king of the heap.
> 
> I have incredibly immense problems with your last statement here. It is Machiavellan. -I've been to Florence. I like that comparison. ;-() 
> 
> The ability for language is key to human intelligence. Adler's book never once tackled apes capable of deriving new meanings, which while capped compared to an adult human, the very fact that you can say a chimp is as intelligent as a 4yr old undermines your own argument.-No it doesn't! Yes they can reach the four year level, at least a few of them did in that study, but can you image this world and this human race at the four year level? Yes the chimps can pick up words and use them meaningfully. So? Adler never saw these new studies. His book is from the 60's. Poodles can learn 200 hundred word commands and concepts. I still suggest "Not A Chimp"; the chapter 'Clever Corvids' should give you pause. I'm sure chimps have an embryonal speech center, but corvids are just as bright in figuring out challenges.

Animal Minds

by dhw, Sunday, June 12, 2011, 08:43 (4674 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The following has one moral. Play only with satiated cheetahs:-http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246886/Pictured-Three-cheetahs-spare-tiny-ante...-Disregarding the controversy over what actually happened to the antelope in the end, I think one can go a bit deeper into this. The whale story illustrated the empathy and sensitivity shown by other animals, while David's moral illustrates the fact that unlike us, other animals kill only in order to survive. They have no choice. Long before humans ... the cruellest of all species ... came on the scene, the world was inhabited by a vast variety of creatures, some herbivorous and some carnivorous. We know that life can go on without killing, since herbivores do not need to kill other creatures in order to survive. And so for those who believe in a loving, caring, all-good God, the question arises: why would such a deity introduce carnivorousness as a way of life?-The question is only a starting point. Apart from natural catastrophes ... insurance companies sometimes call them Acts of God ... most of the evil in the world stems from selfishness: the pursuit of one's own interests at the expense of others, accompanied by a lack of empathy, compassion, considerateness. This principle is essential to the survival of the carnivorous animal (although it doesn't preclude selective empathy etc., any more than it does in the omnivorous human animal). In other words, the basis of evil was laid down long before humans arrived. Why, then, do so many religious people attribute the origin of evil to man and not to God?-This too, however, is only a starting point. I noted above that carnivores have no choice ... and so we wouldn't dream of describing their selfish actions as "good" or "evil". These terms are judgemental, and as we have seen in earlier discussions, the judgement itself has no objective authority ... it's dependent on social consensus. Theologians will argue that humans do have a choice, but if a human pursues his own interests at the expense of others, and has no feeling of empathy, compassion etc., can we be sure that he does have a choice? Why does he not have the feelings we think he ought to have? Here the topic of animal minds links up with the topic of free will, but this is not my point of focus. Once we have recognized that we too are animals, it seems to me that whole areas of human existence become a great deal clearer than they were under the foggy blanket of theology. I would argue that, whether God created life or not, and in spite of our astonishing technology, science, art, philosophy etc., the human world is based on the same mixture of instincts (which we may subjectively judge as "good" or "bad") as that of the animal world. However, through the sophistication of our language and the complexity of our cultures and societies, we have constructed a network of institutions that prevent us from seeing this simple truth. As usual, Shakespeare sums it all up: when King Lear meets Edgar, who is disguised as a mad naked beggar, he observes: "Ha! Here's three on's are sophisticated; thou art the thing itself; unaccommodated man is no more but such a poor, bare, forked animal as thou art."-*******-This was drafted before I read the latest exchange between David and Matt. I agree with David that we are "king of the heap" ... but as Lear discovered, being a king does not make you basically different from the rest of the heap.

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Tuesday, June 14, 2011, 16:15 (4672 days ago) @ dhw

Why, then, do so many religious people attribute the origin of evil to man and not to God?-God used evolution to create humans. 'Red of tooth and claw' was required as soon as one animal started to eat another. We think of killing other humans as evil. Not in wartime. So we are conflicted.
> 
> I would argue that, whether God created life or not, and in spite of our astonishing technology, science, art, philosophy etc., the human world is based on the same mixture of instincts (which we may subjectively judge as "good" or "bad") as that of the animal world. However, through the sophistication of our language and the complexity of our cultures and societies, we have constructed a network of institutions that prevent us from seeing this simple truth. -Oh, I think we do see it. As omnivores, we kill to eat.
 
> This was drafted before I read the latest exchange between David and Matt. I agree with David that we are "king of the heap" ... but as Lear discovered, being a king does not make you basically different from the rest of the heap.-Here is an article about Corvids and parrots. Perhaps as smart as chimps, but as previously stated, only the mere beginnings of our capacities. Adler conquers all. We are different in kind.

Animal Minds

by dhw, Thursday, June 16, 2011, 17:09 (4670 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: God used evolution to create humans. 'Red of tooth and claw' was required as soon as one animal started to eat another.-If there is a God, and if God used evolution in order deliberately to create humans, then it is not unreasonable to assume that God decided one animal should start to eat another. And that is also the starting point of my post. A lion cannot feel compassion/sympathy/empathy for the antelope it is eating. Taking another life for one's own purposes is just about as selfish an action as one can conceive, and I am arguing that this pattern of self-interest was established by other animals long before humans came on the scene. If you 
believe God directed evolution, I see no alternative to believing that God directed the pattern which underlies all evil. No wonder those who believe literally in the Garden of Eden are so resolutely opposed to the blood-spattered history of evolution, since the former illustrates precisely what God could have created if he had been so inclined.-DAVID: We think of killing other humans as evil. Not in wartime. So we are conflicted.-That has no bearing on the subject I have summarized above, which is the SOURCE of what we humans call evil.-I went on to argue that our sophistication covers up the fact that the human world is based on the same mixture of "good" and "bad" instincts as that of the animal world. You responded: "Oh, I think we do see it. As omnivores we kill to eat." And as humans we institutionalize what other animals do naturally: raising families, forming relationships, educating ourselves, building homes, acquiring food, protecting ourselves against the climate, against other species, against our own species. It's true that some of us have the luxury of being able also to devote our attention to less mundane matters, like religion, philosophy, art, science ... but for most humans it's the above activities that form the focal points of life. Thanks to our extra intelligence we make all of them vastly more complex, but different in kind? Well, humans, hyenas, humpback whales, honey bees and humming birds all have those same preoccupations, but are all "different in kind". What is the significance of that?-********-I'm afraid there was no link to the article about Corvids and parrots.

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Thursday, June 16, 2011, 18:55 (4669 days ago) @ dhw

Well, humans, hyenas, humpback whales, honey bees and humming birds all have those same preoccupations, but are all "different in kind". What is the significance of that?-Hyenas, humpbacks, bees, elephants, humming birds, all have what we have to a degree, but we are different in kind (Adler). Where are the elephant Mozarts? the Bach bees? The Shakespeare sheep? The animals a have a smidgen of what we have. You are equating an ant hill with Mt. Everest.
> 
> ********
> 
> I'm afraid there was no link to the article about Corvids and parrots.-Sorry:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110610131906.htm

Animal Minds

by dhw, Sunday, June 19, 2011, 18:36 (4667 days ago) @ David Turell

David says that humans are different in kind from other animals. I pointed out that all species were different in kind, and asked what was the significance of this fact.-DAVID: Hyenas, humpbacks, bees, elephants, humming birds all have what we have to a degree, but we are different in kind (Adler). Where are the elephant Mozarts? The Bach bees? The Shakespeare sheep? The animals have a smidgen of what we have. You are equating an ant hill with Mt Everest.-I must stress that I am equating the basic instincts, not the intellectual, aesthetic, scientific or philosophical capacity! I listed the shared preoccupations in my previous post (family, relationships, education, home, food, protection against climate and other species as well as our own). These are the very foundations of animal and human life, and the barriers of sophistication that we have erected around ourselves prevent many people from realizing that our social, educational and commercial institutions, our industries, our weapons, our wars etc. are all extensions of the same primitive instincts we have inherited from our animal ancestors. Even in your post on "Human Evolution" you have drawn attention to the difficulty of distinguishing between early humans and other animals, when you ask if "homo habilis" really was "homo". There are many different facets to this particular topic, and it might help to list them:-1) Our lives are based mainly (not exclusively) on the same set of instincts as those of other animals.-2) Our extreme sophistication blinds us to the common ground we share with other animals, and makes us insensitive to their feelings.-3) The fact that we came so late on the scene makes a mockery of the argument that humans are responsible for the patterns of selfish behaviour which result in what we describe as "evil". These patterns arose from the struggle for survival, and either from random changes in the course of evolution (e.g. sexual rivalry, the arrival of carnivores), or from the deliberate work of a conscious, creative intelligence, which must have chosen to introduce self-centred aggression.-4) It could be argued that while all species are "different in kind", humans with their many levels of conscious intelligence are in some way "superior". This view (which is common, though I'm not sure if anyone on this website subscribes to it) is dangerous. Although in my opinion we have every right to be proud of our artistic, scientific, philosophical etc. achievements, our species is the most destructive and self-destructive on the planet. Not only have we failed to devise any social system to rival the efficiency of that devised by many insects, but also our massively advanced intelligence enables us to exercise our basest animal instincts on a vast scale, so that we inflict unprecedented degrees of damage on all life forms including our own, as well as on the environment that sustains our life. It would seem that our differences have served to expand the impact of our common features. It might be argued, then, that the Mt Everest/anthill image is more one of degree than of kind.-*************-On a lighter note, I caught the tail-end of a news snippet a couple of days ago. On consecutive mornings, a farmer woke up to find that his cows had escaped through an open gate. He therefore kept watch to see if he could catch the culprit. It turned out to be a cow which had learned to open the gate with its tongue! I will leave you to imagine the thoughts that must have gone through that cow's mind, not to mention the thoughts of her fan club.

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Monday, June 20, 2011, 00:09 (4666 days ago) @ dhw

David says that humans are different in kind from other animals. I pointed out that all species were different in kind, and asked what was the significance of this fact.
> 
> DAVID: Hyenas, humpbacks, bees, elephants, humming birds all have what we have to a degree, but we are different in kind (Adler). Where are the elephant Mozarts? The Bach bees? The Shakespeare sheep? The animals have a smidgen of what we have. You are equating an ant hill with Mt Everest.
> 
> I must stress that I am equating the basic instincts, not the intellectual, aesthetic, scientific or philosophical capacity!-And that is fine, but it is bypassing the points I have made over the years. I am not discussing animals as organisms with certain physical and mental qualities. I am looking as humans as possessing an infinitely more complex brain with extraordinary capacities. That brain is different in kind, not degree from bats, buffaloes, whales, dolphins, apes, chimps, corvids, etc. Same basic instincts, yes. Aestheic capacities, infinitely enormous in the human brain. Compare the lower animals from us? You should know better. There is no real comparison, except at the simple levels you decribe, we inherit the same basic comparisons. Again, that is tiny portion of what we humans are. And that brain is contained in a body which is much more capable of intricate activity than our closest relatives. Put a chimp at bat in cricket. Any doubt as to the outcome? Even with training, if that is possible. There are so many ways in which we differ.-See Raymond Talls' book, 'Aping Mankind', just being released, which states that we differ in kind, not degree.

Animal Minds

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, June 20, 2011, 00:51 (4666 days ago) @ David Turell

David says that humans are different in kind from other animals. I pointed out that all species were different in kind, and asked what was the significance of this fact.
> > 
> > DAVID: Hyenas, humpbacks, bees, elephants, humming birds all have what we have to a degree, but we are different in kind (Adler). Where are the elephant Mozarts? The Bach bees? The Shakespeare sheep? The animals have a smidgen of what we have. You are equating an ant hill with Mt Everest.
> > 
> > I must stress that I am equating the basic instincts, not the intellectual, aesthetic, scientific or philosophical capacity!
> 
> And that is fine, but it is bypassing the points I have made over the years. I am not discussing animals as organisms with certain physical and mental qualities. I am looking as humans as possessing an infinitely more complex brain with extraordinary capacities. That brain is different in kind, not degree from bats, buffaloes, whales, dolphins, apes, chimps, corvids, etc. Same basic instincts, yes. Aestheic capacities, infinitely enormous in the human brain. Compare the lower animals from us? You should know better. There is no real comparison, except at the simple levels you decribe, we inherit the same basic comparisons. Again, that is tiny portion of what we humans are. And that brain is contained in a body which is much more capable of intricate activity than our closest relatives. Put a chimp at bat in cricket. Any doubt as to the outcome? Even with training, if that is possible. There are so many ways in which we differ.
> 
> See Raymond Talls' book, 'Aping Mankind', just being released, which states that we differ in kind, not degree.-I'm going to call you out on this one here... because anatomically, the only real difference between us and the rest of the ape kingdom is that we have a larger prefrontal cortex. (Outside of a larger brain overall.) On a cellular level, we all have axons, neurons, and spindle cells. Spindle cells, it turns out are the likely source of our emotional intelligences... although the fact that dogs read human emotions like us and they LACK these cells is definitely a mystery for that explanation. -Bottom line is, you can technically argue that each species' brain is different when you just pluck it out of the head, but the fact that all our brains are made of the same basic 'stuff' screams degree rather than kind. -As a caveat, mathematically speaking, each brain you look at is completely different from the next, so technically speaking, there is NO similarity even between the brains of two healthy adult humans (even if they are identical twins). But if we travel down that path, we come directly to Agrippan skepticism, and I'll leave it to you (or dhw) to come up with a proper refutation of THAT.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Monday, June 20, 2011, 02:51 (4666 days ago) @ xeno6696

I'm going to call you out on this one here... because anatomically, the only real difference between us and the rest of the ape kingdom is that we have a larger prefrontal cortex. (Outside of a larger brain overall.) -I'm not afraid of your call out: our brain is 4 times the size of the chimp, smaller than the elephant or the whale, but the logorithmic relationship between brain size and animal body size finds us way off the relationship line. (See the very recent Sci Am) -
> Bottom line is, you can technically argue that each species' brain is different when you just pluck it out of the head, but the fact that all our brains are made of the same basic 'stuff' screams degree rather than kind.-Very false analogy. We have 100 billion neurons with 100 billion synapses. It is this complexity that makes it kind, not degree.
> 
> As a caveat, mathematically speaking, each brain you look at is completely different from the next, so technically speaking, there is NO similarity even between the brains of two healthy adult humans (even if they are identical twins). -That comment is totally beside the point. We are discussing the average human brain against any other mammalian brain. The book I mentioned is not yet out but takes Adler's side. Check into it.

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Monday, June 20, 2011, 19:51 (4665 days ago) @ David Turell

Watch an octopus use its mind:-http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/nstv/2011/06/octopus-navigates-maze-to-grab-its-dinner.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=octopus

Animal Minds

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 14:48 (4665 days ago) @ David Turell


> Very false analogy. We have 100 billion neurons with 100 billion synapses. It is this complexity that makes it kind, not degree.
> > -No its not. Your demonstration here is one of degree, not kind. All mammals have synapses, all have neurons. Your argument is only that we have more of the same thing, meaning directly that we are different (on the structural level) only in degree. -The only way we are different in kind is in observed behavior.-> > As a caveat, mathematically speaking, each brain you look at is completely different from the next, so technically speaking, there is NO similarity even between the brains of two healthy adult humans (even if they are identical twins). 
> 
> That comment is totally beside the point. We are discussing the average human brain against any other mammalian brain. The book I mentioned is not yet out but takes Adler's side. Check into it.-I will, but going over my notes from Adler, he was arguing holistically, and he didn't have acess to the more recent studies. Again, you said yourself that chimps are as smart as a 4yr old. Trying to argue kind at that point puts you in hot water.-Dolphins have culture. So do elephants. I think a mistake is in assuming intelligence means cities and industry, tools, and writing. That's applying human standards to creatures that cleary experience the world differently.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 26, 2011, 06:21 (4660 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Your demonstration here is one of degree, not kind. All mammals have synapses, all have neurons. Your argument is only that we have more of the same thing, meaning directly that we are different (on the structural level) only in degree. -Please see my just written response to dhw.
> 
> The only way we are different in kind is in observed behavior.-It is much more than behavior, and you know that. We are different in conceptualization. We produce art, music, philosophy, etc. none of which is necessary for survival.
> 
> > > As a caveat, mathematically speaking, each brain you look at is completely different from the next, so technically speaking, there is NO similarity even between the brains of two healthy adult humans (even if they are identical twins). -I don't understand that this point has a place in our argument. We are talking about the average human brain function, not that it has synapses. My dog and I both have tongues, but he doesn't talk with meaning as we do.
> > 
> > That comment is totally beside the point. We are discussing the average human brain against any other mammalian brain. The book I mentioned is not yet out but takes Adler's side. Check into it.
> 
> I will, but going over my notes from Adler, he was arguing holistically, and he didn't have acess to the more recent studies. Again, you said yourself that chimps are as smart as a 4yr old. Trying to argue kind at that point puts you in hot water.-That is as far as chimps go. I don't see hot water.
> 
> Dolphins have culture. So do elephants. I think a mistake is in assuming intelligence means cities and industry, tools, and writing. That's applying human standards to creatures that cleary experience the world differently.-Of course they experience it differently. They don't have the capacity to experience it as we do.-Many years ago, here in Houston Shell had a re-inforced concrete skyscraper built, first of its kind, 40-50 stories tall. Previously that type of building was very limited in stories. This is a difference in degree. The different materials constituting this building are just like neurons, synapses, etc. But the difference is that the human brain has had an emergent quality, a consciousness with self-awareness. Animals are sentient to a degree, but have only a smidgen of our consciousness. There is no question in my mind, we differ, not in degree, but in kind because of the enormous degree of difference and the emergent consciousnes.

Animal Minds

by dhw, Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 14:19 (4665 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I must stress that I am equating the basic instincts, not the intellectual, aesthetic, scientific or philosophical capacity!-DAVID: And that is fine, but it is bypassing the points I have made over the years. I am not discussing animals as organisms with certain physical and mental qualities. I am looking at humans as possessing an infinitely more complex brain with extraordinary capacities. That brain is different in kind, not degree from bats, buffaloes, whales, dolphins, apes, chimps, corvids, etc. Same basic instincts, yes. Aesthetic capacities, infinitely enormous in the human brain. Compare the lower animals from us? You should know better. There is no real comparison, except at the simple levels you describe, we inherit the same basic comparisons. Again, that is tiny portion of what we humans are. -It's clear that the dialogue between us is actually a pair of monologues! I'm using the topic to shed light on a number of subjects, including our own animal nature, our insensitivity to other animals, and the origin of evil (which may itself lead to speculation on the nature of a possible God). For you, what matters is the differences between us and other animals. I have repeatedly acknowledged these, as in the comment at the beginning of this post. But within the narrower confines of the discussion you want to have (different in kind, not degree) there are still points on which we disagree, and they will lead eventually to a question. First, though, the points themselves:-I do not agree that the basic animal instincts are a tiny portion of what we humans are. On the contrary, I believe they are a huge portion of what we are, and are fundamental to our existence and our behaviour. Can you honestly claim that sex, family life, social relationships, education, home, the need for food, protection against climate, other species and our own species are "tiny" matters? I am arguing that much of our remarkable intelligence is devoted precisely to coping with the same problems faced by our fellow animals, although that very intelligence has in some cases exacerbated rather than eased the difficulties. -DAVID: And that brain is contained in a body which is much more capable of intricate activity than our closest relatives. Put a chimp at bat in cricket. Any doubt as to the outcome? Even with training, if that is possible. There are so many ways in which we differ.-I regard this as a minor matter, but since it illustrates difference, let me point out that I can't fly, live under water, swing from branch to branch or climb a vertical pole at breakneck speed, walk across the ceiling, or hear/smell the world around me with anything like the degree of perceptiveness available, say, to my neighbour's dog. By "intricate" activity, perhaps you are referring to the flexibility of the hand. Fair enough. But I would argue that the "difference" of the human body ... as opposed to the brain ... makes it more capable than that of other animals only in some fields, but not in others.
 
The question that really intrigues me, however, is exactly WHY it is so important to you to establish that humans are different in kind from other animals. You believe that evolution happened ... in other words, that we are directly descended from other animals. You acknowledge, though you minimalize, the common ground between us and them. You use terms like "more complex" and "more capable" ... both of which are comparatives, and hence terms of degree and not of kind. So why does the question of kind v. degree actually matter?

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 26, 2011, 06:03 (4660 days ago) @ dhw

I do not agree that the basic animal instincts are a tiny portion of what we humans are. On the contrary, I believe they are a huge portion of what we are, and are fundamental to our existence and our behaviour. Can you honestly claim that sex, family life, social relationships, education, home, the need for food, protection against climate, other species and our own species are "tiny" matters? -You are a romantic at heart. This of course drives what you have written as an author. The paragraph above anthropomorphizes animals. Yes, they worry about food to eat, shelter against enemies and storms. But 'family'. My dog just tried to have sex with his Mother the other day. Animals worry about education, social relationships and other human concerns. No! We do have their basic instincts, but they are very basic in us. Our lives are much more involved. Food and shelter are easy today for us. Not for the hunter-gatherers, but we are way beyond that due to our huge brain and its capacities. 
 
> The question that really intrigues me, however, is exactly WHY it is so important to you to establish that humans are different in kind from other animals. You believe that evolution happened ... in other words, that we are directly descended from other animals. You acknowledge, though you minimalize, the common ground between us and them. You use terms like "more complex" and "more capable" ... both of which are comparatives, and hence terms of degree and not of kind. So why does the question of kind v. degree actually matter?-Because I believe that we are different in kind, not degree, and that is one of my concepts of a proof of God. There is no reason we developed as we have in our cognitive ability. Chimps and other apes have survived in evolution without those extra abilities for six million years since we split off. Why should our line have progressed as we have? It was not required as an adaptation to the pressures of survival. We have gone way beyond survival. If we accept the idea that threatened survival drives the adaptations of evolution, then why US? There is no good reason under Darwinian concepts. Or any other theories for that matter. I'll agree that we differe in degree, but it is such a huge degree, and not a required degree, that I must conclude that we are different in kind.

Animal Minds

by dhw, Sunday, June 26, 2011, 16:40 (4660 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I do not agree that the basic animal instincts are a tiny portion of what we humans are. [...] Can you honestly claim that sex, family life, social relationships, education, home, the need for food, protection against climate, other species and our own species are "tiny" matters? -DAVID: The paragraph above anthropomorphizes animals. Yes, they worry about food to eat, shelter against enemies and storms. But 'family'. My dog just tried to have sex with his Mother the other day. Animals worry about education, social relationships and other human concerns. No! We do have their basic instincts, but they are very basic in us. Our lives are much more involved. Food and shelter are easy today for us. Not for the hunter-gatherers, but we are way beyond that due to our huge brain and its capacities.-Mammals depend on family relationships (especially mother-child) for their survival, social animals depend on social relationships for their survival, the young have to be trained. This is not anthropomorphization. Food and shelter are easy for those humans who have it, but there are millions who do not. If you did not have them, would your huge brain be more concerned with Beethoven and Shakespeare, or with food and shelter? Yes, our lives are much more involved, but that should not blind us to the enormous role played by our own animal instincts, or to the common ground that we have with other animals. This, incidentally, includes the ability to communicate with one another. In your response to Matt you assume that dog sounds (and presumably all other animal "languages") have no meaning. How do you know?-DAVID: There is no reason we developed as we have in our cognitive ability. Chimps and other apes have survived in evolution without those extra abilities for six million years since we split off. Why should our line have progressed as we have? It was not required as an adaptation to the pressures of survival. We have gone way beyond survival. If we accept the idea that threatened survival drives the adaptations of evolution, then why US? There is no good reason under Darwinian concepts. Or any other theories for that matter. I'll agree that we differ in degree, but it is such a huge degree, and not a required degree, that I must conclude that we are different in kind.-This is where our lines of thought begin to converge, and I agree with much of what you say, but I see no point in pursuing the quibble that differing to a huge degree = differing in kind. Your argument that human consciousness was not required as an adaptation to the pressures of survival can be applied to every creature that has evolved from earlier forms of life, since these have themselves survived. So it's not just a question of why consciousness, but also why sex, why vision, why flight? Why the dodo, why the tyrannosaurus rex? We're going back over old ground here, but the questions have not been answered satisfactorily. Tony (balance-maintained) has speculated that every single innovation and extinction was necessary for the ultimate emergence of humans, which fits in with your theory that God had it all planned from the beginning. But one might just as well speculate that every innovation and extinction was part of the random inventiveness of the original mechanisms. Hence, as with our own human inventions, some survive and some don't. Evolution itself was not NECESSARY for life in its original forms to go on, and so the real cornerstone of evolution has to be innovation. The explanations for this unsolved mystery can be divided into three scenarios:-1) A UI created the mechanism of evolution and programmed its outcome. (Where did the UI come from? Why so many dead ends if it had planned everything from the start?)-2) A UI created the mechanism of evolution and left it to do its own thing, perhaps occasionally intervening. (Where did the UI come from?)-3) Sheer chance created the mechanism of evolution, which then did its own thing. (Requires quasi-religious faith in the creative genius of chance as opposed to religious faith in a UI.)-All three fit in with the process of evolution as we know it, and all three require faith in the unknowable and unprovable. Only 1) automatically gives a goal to evolution and a privileged position to humans; only 2) and 3) offer what to my mind is a convincing explanation of evolution's higgledy-piggledy bush; 2) and 3) require some form of innate intelligence within the materials that create innovations. Of course, David, I agree with you that our very ability to formulate such theories shows the huge intellectual gap between us and our fellow animals, but I really cannot see that this creates a case for 1) being any more or less likely than 2) or 3).

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Sunday, June 26, 2011, 18:01 (4660 days ago) @ dhw

Evolution itself was not NECESSARY for life in its original forms to go on, and so the real cornerstone of evolution has to be innovation. The explanations for this unsolved mystery can be divided into three scenarios:
> 
> 1) A UI created the mechanism of evolution and programmed its outcome. (Where did the UI come from? Why so many dead ends if it had planned everything from the start?)
> 
> 2) A UI created the mechanism of evolution and left it to do its own thing, perhaps occasionally intervening. (Where did the UI come from?)
> 
> 3) Sheer chance created the mechanism of evolution, which then did its own thing. (Requires quasi-religious faith in the creative genius of chance as opposed to religious faith in a UI.)
> 
> All three fit in with the process of evolution as we know it, and all three require faith in the unknowable and unprovable.-Excellent summary on your part in our discussion. At this point I think we have to analyze what we observe as the known history of life. Prop 1 doesn't fit. Evolution is innovative in all sorts of ways; the spiders that live underwater as one crazy example; fungus living on ants; humming birds that store an exact milligram of fat to make a 600-mile flight across the Gulf of Mexico from my backyard to Mexico to escape the winter. These are all survival techniques, undoubtedly set up through epigenetic mechanisms. So evolution was set up to go off in many directions, ending up in the massive bush we see. At the same time we do not yet know, research has not gone that far, whether there is a built-in directionality toward primates. Certainly evolution creates organisms that are complexer and complexer. So my guess at this point is Prop. 2 is the correct guess. Prop 3 is reasonably beyond all belief.-As for the other discussion, animal instinct, we've beaten it to death and will remain in disagreement. I work with horses, a dog, barn cats, and make bird houses and bird feeders. We have a deer preserve we live in. Civilized humans have sublimated most of the instictual behavior that underlies our evolution. But there are the uncivilized: bin Laden, Hitler, etc. and we go to war to defend ourselves.- The very civilized have developed mores way beyond the African and Muslim tribalism. In my opinion that colonization that disappeared after WWII disappeared because the Europeans who were the custodians raped the countries and did not develop the mores of the indigenous people properly. The European greed was a form of instinct I admit, and freeing the colonies was a form of selfishness. And the current EU with its poorly thought through social policies is now battling sovereign debt. But we can see all this clearly and we can learn from it.-On the other hand my new barn cat, after three weeks, remains afraid of me, doesn't yet recognize me as a friend. I'm feeding her, offering water and shelter, and she is still figuring it out, although we have had times when she will rub against me and I can pet her. If I did that for you, you would immediately recognize our friendly relationship.

Animal Minds

by dhw, Monday, June 27, 2011, 17:50 (4659 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Evolution itself was not NECESSARY for life in its original forms to go on, and so the real cornerstone of evolution has to be innovation. The explanations for this unsolved mystery can be divided into three scenarios:-1) A UI created the mechanism of evolution and programmed its outcome. (Where did the UI come from? Why so many dead ends if it had planned everything from the start?)-2) A UI created the mechanism of evolution and left it to do its own thing, perhaps occasionally intervening. (Where did the UI come from?)
3) Sheer chance created the mechanism of evolution, which then did its own thing. (Requires quasi-religious faith in the creative genius of chance as opposed to religious faith in a UI.)-All three fit in with the process of evolution as we know it, and all three require faith in the unknowable and unprovable.-DAVID: Excellent summary on your part in our discussion. At this point I think we have to analyze what we observe as the known history of life. Prop 1 doesn't fit. Evolution is innovative in all sorts of ways; the spiders that live underwater as one crazy example; fungus living on ants; humming birds that store an exact milligram of fat to make a 600-mile flight across the Gulf of Mexico from my backyard to Mexico to escape the winter. These are all survival techniques, undoubtedly set up through epigenetic mechanisms. So evolution was set up to go off in many directions, ending up in the massive bush we see. At the same time we do not yet know, research has not gone that far, whether there is a built-in directionality toward primates. Certainly evolution creates organisms that are complexer and complexer. So my guess at this point is Prop. 2 is the correct guess. Prop 3 is reasonably beyond all belief.-I think we have to distinguish between two types of innovation. You have pinpointed survival techniques set up through epigenetic mechanisms, but these are adaptations. So far as we know, they do not result in new species. The other type is far more radical, going back to the all-important question of how the earlier, "primitive" (but nonetheless complex) forms of life could have developed and changed into the millions of species extant and extinct that have populated the history of life. Neo-Darwinism attributes innovation to random combinations and mutations, with the assumption that given enough time, chance plus natural selection will produce the variety we now have. Since earlier, "primitive" forms of life have survived, however, clearly the millions of changes were not NECESSARY for survival. We are left, then, with a scenario in which innovation takes place for its own sake. Living cells experiment. Some experiments work and survive, others don't (just like human inventions). Our scientists would be deliriously happy if they could find a few microbes on Mars ... but proof of such life elsewhere won't answer the question of how and why evolution happened. Life and replication in themselves do not automatically mean evolution. I remain convinced that evolution did happen, and that there must be a direct line leading from the early forms to ourselves, but I agree with you: it beggars belief that such inventiveness could spring from a chance combination of materials.-On the other hand ... sorry, but agnostics always have another hand ... it also beggars belief than an intelligence almost infinitely superior to our own could have simply existed for ever or could have spontaneously generated itself. If you can believe that, you can believe that the original mechanism for life and evolution spontaneously generated itself. I see no way out of this intellectual trap.

Animal Minds

by David Turell @, Tuesday, September 27, 2011, 01:21 (4567 days ago) @ dhw

It is now shown that a species of lizard is as smart as the Tit (a bird species and well studied).-http://www.economist.com/node/18956078

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 00:40 (3037 days ago) @ David Turell

Animal minds are a mystery to us, just as I know my consciousness, but I only can presume yours:-http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/what_can_we_hop101361.html-"Consciousness (a mind) perceives and acts on information. But there are at least two -- more basic and probably unconscious qualities -- that distinguish life from non-life, and seem to act by processing information: self-preservation and adaptability.-***-"But why do life forms struggle so hard to remain alive when the option of simply dying -- ceasing to be a life form at all, and rejoining the chemical seas -- is readily available, and eventually inevitable?-"Naturalist explanations don't turn out to be much help with any of this. Polymath Christoph Adami, interviewed in Quanta Magazine, sees life itself as "self-perpetuating information strings," and defines information as "the ability to make predictions with a likelihood better than chance."-***-"Taking a slightly different tack, theoretical biologist Kalevi Kull, author of Towards a Semiotic Biology: Life Is the Action of Signs, asks whether life is a form of signaling. Perhaps so, but signaling places us in the world of purpose, not random events.-"Communication begins far below the level of the whole life form. One can hardly talk about the genome now, it seems, without an understanding of its complex grammar, "more complex than that of even the most intricately constructed spoken languages in the world" according to Karolinska researchers:-
"Their analysis reveals that the grammar of the genetic code is much more complex than that of even the most complex human languages. Instead of simply joining two words together by deleting a space, the individual words that are joined together in compound DNA words are altered, leading to a large number of completely new words. -***-"So can we determine accurately whether life forms are conscious? Brainless jellyfish, for example, are now thought to act with purpose when fishing.-"Are the jellyfish conscious of that purpose? That would amount to having a mind without a brain. But the actual relationship between mind and brain is not -- as we shall see -- as straightforward as was once supposed. For one thing, there does not seem to be a "tree of intelligence," in the sense of a completely consistent correlation between size/type of brain and observed intelligence. -***-"Cave then tells us that:
... all around us, every day, we see a very natural kind of freedom -- one that is completely compatible with determinism. It is the kind that living things need to pursue their goals in a world that continually presents them with multiple possibilities. -"Obviously, if "free will" is completely compatible with determinism (and Darwinism, he tells us, accounts for that) then free will as we traditionally understand it doesn't exist and can't be measured in any life form. So why claim it does, and can?-"Cave's thesis about free will differs significantly from the observation above that jellyfish pursue fish with intent: The intentional behavior of jellyfish is observed; we simply don't know if they know their own intentions. Cave, by contrast, wants to account for human as well as animal intentions as entirely determined while appearing free -- in order to support a fully naturalist perspective.-***-"We humans have a sense of "self" that goes well beyond a drive to continue to exist. But to what extent do other life forms have this sense? Recent decades of research on apes and monkeys can give us some sense of the territory we are entering."-Comment: A series to be continued. Different in degree or kind?

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 14:15 (3037 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Animal minds are a mystery to us, just as I know my consciousness, but I only can presume yours:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/12/what_can_we_hop101361.html-Thank you for this superb article, which covers whole areas of our discussions. I'll comment on some of your quotes, and add a few others.
 
QUOTE: "Consciousness (a mind) perceives and acts on information. But there are at least two -- more basic and probably unconscious qualities -- that distinguish life from non-life, and seem to act by processing information: self-preservation and adaptability.”-I would add the all-important drive for improvement, which I see as the trigger for evolution: self-preservation and adaptability only account for survival. -QUOTE: “Polymath Christoph Adami, interviewed in Quanta Magazine, sees life itself as "self-perpetuating information strings," and defines information as "the ability to make predictions with a likelihood better than chance."”-An article I found very confusing and contradictory (see “Information as the source of life”, 25 November at 14.24 - a title which makes no sense to me).
 
QUOTE: "So can we determine accurately whether life forms are conscious? Brainless jellyfish, for example, are now thought to act with purpose when fishing. Are the jellyfish conscious of that purpose? That would amount to having a mind without a brain. But the actual relationship between mind and brain is not -- as we shall see -- as straightforward as was once supposed. For one thing, there does not seem to be a "tree of intelligence," in the sense of a completely consistent correlation between size/type of brain and observed intelligence.”-A mind without a brain is integral to the concept of cellular intelligence. On the “Human consciousness” thread, you comment: “Let's throw out materialism as the lone explanation is what he is suggesting.” You will have to do the same for other animals whose consciousness you recognize. But where do you draw the line? In any case, whether consciousness (I prefer “intelligence”, to distinguish it from self-awareness) is or is not confined to materials, maybe ALL organisms have it. It's a “maybe”...I only kick and scream when somebody insists they don't.-QUOTE: "We humans have a sense of "self" that goes well beyond a drive to continue to exist. But to what extent do other life forms have this sense? “-My evolutionary “drive to improvement” depends on this sense. NB: for those of us who believe in common descent, it is logical that humans would have inherited this drive - as opposed to being its originators.-xxxxxxx
 
Here are more quotes from Denyse O'Leary's brilliant article:-QUOTE: “Human consciousness is difficult to define and "arguably the central issue in current theorizing about the mind," even though we experience it all our waking hours. If we can't even define our own consciousness, can we say whether a different type of life form has consciousness or a mind?”-We can't, and so we should remain open-minded.-QUOTE: “Some current philosophers have reasoned away the problem by positing that rocks have minds too.”
 
What follows is a defence of panpsychism, though the philosopher Jim Holt does not say so here. Many panpsychists are theists, and believe everything began with intelligence, but we have also discussed the hypothesis that everything began with mindless energy and matter, and intelligence evolved from their interaction.-QUOTE: “Life forms communicate with each other to a degree that often surprises researchers. Prey animals, for example, warn predators of the danger of eating them or advise other prey that a hiding place is taken. But evidence suggests that plants can communicate too. The Scientist tells us: Researchers are unearthing evidence that, far from being unresponsive and uncommunicative organisms, plants engage in regular conversation...Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand.”-One up for Kevin and Kitty Cuttlefish, not to mention Billie Bacterium, as follows:
QUOTE: “What the naturalists are doing is called anthropomorphism -- ascribing human qualities to life forms that may experience life very differently. It was once the province of folk tales. Not today. This year, we were told in the science press that bacteria have morals:
Far from being selfish organisms whose sole purpose is to maximize their own reproduction, bacteria in large communities work for the greater good by resolving a social conflict among individuals to enhance the survival of their entire community.”-“Anthropomorphism” probably puts things the wrong way round (see my earlier NB). If we accept common descent, we are more likely to have inherited these characteristics than invented them. Anyway, there you have it: bacteria are just like social insects, and are not mindless automatons but individual beings. And fancy that, here's the next quote:-QUOTE:“Hence the matricide," Loope said. "Workers are not mindless automatons working for the queen no matter what. They only altruistically give up reproduction when the context is right, but revolt when it benefits them to do so."-You don't have to believe it, but you have to be very stubborn indeed to disbelieve it.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 15:14 (3037 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 15:41


> QUOTE: "Consciousness (a mind) perceives and acts on information. But there are at least two -- more basic and probably unconscious qualities -- that distinguish life from non-life, and seem to act by processing information: self-preservation and adaptability.”
> 
> dhw: I would add the all-important drive for improvement, which I see as the trigger for evolution: self-preservation and adaptability only account for survival.-We agree, since I view the 'drive' to include complexity with the final pinnacle as the human brain. Note the article on six new neurons. -> dhw: A mind without a brain is integral to the concept of cellular intelligence. On the “Human consciousness” thread, you comment: “Let's throw out materialism as the lone explanation is what he is suggesting.” You will have to do the same for other animals whose consciousness you recognize.-Your comment confuses consciousness with intelligence. First animals are conscious but self-consciousness is different, and their degree of self-consciousness appears to be minimal. As for intelligence in cells we are back to the same issue, intelligent instructions for actions or actual intelligence. We cannot tell the difference from the outside of a bacteria. I am not a materialist as you know,anda firm dualist.-> 
> dhw:QUOTE: "We humans have a sense of "self" that goes well beyond a drive to continue to exist. But to what extent do other life forms have this sense? “
> 
> My evolutionary “drive to improvement” depends on this sense. NB: for those of us who believe in common descent, it is logical that humans would have inherited this drive - as opposed to being its originators.-Of course. Early hominins are today's Homo
> 
> xxxxxxx
> 
> dhw: Here are more quotes from Denyse O'Leary's brilliant article:-I thought you'd like it. Her background is as a devout clear-thinking Catholic.
> 
> QUOTE: “Some current philosophers have reasoned away the problem by positing that rocks have minds too.”
> 
> dhw: What follows is a defence of panpsychism, though the philosopher Jim Holt does not say so here.
 
> QUOTE: “Life forms communicate with each other to a degree that often surprises researchers. Prey animals, for example, warn predators of the danger of eating them or advise other prey that a hiding place is taken. But evidence suggests that plants can communicate too. The Scientist tells us: Researchers are unearthing evidence that, far from being unresponsive and uncommunicative organisms, plants engage in regular conversation...Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand.”-Again you presume too much. Plants use gases and chemicals to communicate through their roots and through the air. There is much and growing research on this aspect of their lives. Automatic controlling information in their genomes is all we can presume. There is little support for panpsychism, per se, in the theological and philosophic communities today. God's implanted instructions are another issue.-> dhw: Anyway, there you have it: bacteria are just like social insects, and are not mindless automatons but individual beings. And fancy that, here's the next quote:
> 
> QUOTE:“Hence the matricide," Loope said. "Workers are not mindless automatons working for the queen no matter what. They only altruistically give up reproduction when the context is right, but revolt when it benefits them to do so."
> 
> You don't have to believe it, but you have to be very stubborn indeed to disbelieve it.-I presented it. I believe it. You and I debate the driving instructional mechanisms. There could be a designated endpoint to a given queen's work, and she is then overthrown.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Sunday, December 06, 2015, 13:16 (3036 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: A mind without a brain is integral to the concept of cellular intelligence. On the “Human consciousness” thread, you comment: “Let's throw out materialism as the lone explanation is what he is suggesting.” You will have to do the same for other animals whose consciousness you recognize.
DAVID: Your comment confuses consciousness with intelligence. First animals are conscious but self-consciousness is different, and their degree of self-consciousness appears to be minimal.-In the next but one sentence, I wrote after the word consciousness: “I prefer ”intelligence”, to distinguish it from self-awareness.” In my definition (see below, but you already know it), intelligence requires consciousness but not self-awareness, and I knew you would try to conflate the two. You grant “intelligence” to your dog and various other animals, and if I remember rightly, you even believe some animals have souls.
 
DAVID: As for intelligence in cells we are back to the same issue, intelligent instructions for actions or actual intelligence. We cannot tell the difference from the outside of a bacteria. I am not a materialist as you know, and a firm dualist.

Except when it comes to bacteria, and then suddenly you are a firm materialist.-dhw: QUOTE: "We humans have a sense of "self" that goes well beyond a drive to continue to exist. But to what extent do other life forms have this sense? “
My evolutionary “drive to improvement” depends on this sense. NB: for those of us who believe in common descent, it is logical that humans would have inherited this drive - as opposed to being its originators.
DAVID: Of course. Early hominins are today's Homo.-Common descent did not begin with hominins. Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution.
 
dhw: Here are more quotes from Denyse O'Leary's brilliant article:
DAVID: I thought you'd like it. Her background is as a devout clear-thinking Catholic.-Then it will be interesting to see how much autonomous intelligence she attributes to our fellow creatures.-QUOTE: “Life forms communicate with each other to a degree that often surprises researchers [...] evidence suggests that plants can communicate too [...] Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand.”-DAVID: Again you presume too much. Plants use gases and chemicals to communicate through their roots and through the air. There is much and growing research on this aspect of their lives. -This is not just my presumption. You have kindly posted many articles emphasizing the mental activities of even the lowliest organisms. But for some reason, you always focus on the means of communication, which in all organisms - including ourselves - rely on automatic processes. The presence of intelligence is shown by WHAT is communicated, not by HOW communication takes place.- DAVID: There is little support for panpsychism, per se, in the theological and philosophic communities today. God's implanted instructions are another issue.-I haven't seen any polls on the subject, and I wonder how much support theologians and philosophers give to your theory that 3.8 billion years ago God implanted instructions on how to build a weaverbird's nest. As regards panpsychism, I am becoming more and more convinced that all forms of life have a degree of “intelligence” (i.e. autonomous awareness (but not self-awareness), sentience, the ability to process information, communicate, cooperate, take decisions etc.), but I am very doubtful about inanimate things like rocks. (I am not referring to the kind of “intelligence” BBella has been discussing.)
 
QUOTE:“Hence the matricide," Loope said. "Workers are not mindless automatons working for the queen no matter what. They only altruistically give up reproduction when the context is right, but revolt when it benefits them to do so."
You don't have to believe it, but you have to be very stubborn indeed to disbelieve it.
DAVID: I presented it. I believe it. You and I debate the driving instructional mechanisms. There could be a designated endpoint to a given queen's work, and she is then overthrown.-If the “driving instructional mechanisms” (sometimes known as “guidance”, but this is much clearer), were not devised originally by the bees themselves, I am left with God as their source, which in turn gives me the choice between a 3.8-billion-year-old computer programme for Queen Bee Overthrowing, or God personally instructing the workers to overthrow the Queen. Fortunately, you have already said you understand my doubts...

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 06, 2015, 15:42 (3036 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: if I remember rightly, you even believe some animals have souls.-In Jewish tradition animals have souls. I except that it may be.
> 
> DAVID: As for intelligence in cells we are back to the same issue, intelligent instructions for actions or actual intelligence. We cannot tell the difference from the outside of a bacteria. I am not a materialist as you know, and a firm dualist.
> 
> dhw: Except when it comes to bacteria, and then suddenly you are a firm materialist.-I am a dualist at the consciousness level. "I think therefore I am".-> dhw: Common descent did not begin with hominins. Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution.-My limited-to-humans comment did not deny this.-> 
> dhw: The presence of intelligence is shown by WHAT is communicated, not by HOW communication takes place.-This bucks up against our usual difference. Intelligent instructions can control communication which appear to be intelligent information.
> 
> dhw: As regards panpsychism, I am becoming more and more convinced that all forms of life have a degree of “intelligence” (i.e. autonomous awareness (but not self-awareness), sentience, the ability to process information, communicate, cooperate, take decisions etc.),-Once again I take the view that before consciousness appeared, automaticity is present.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Monday, December 07, 2015, 12:48 (3035 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: As for intelligence in cells we are back to the same issue, intelligent instructions for actions or actual intelligence. We cannot tell the difference from the outside of a bacteria. I am not a materialist as you know, and a firm dualist.
dhw: Except when it comes to bacteria, and then suddenly you are a firm materialist.
DAVID: I am a dualist at the consciousness level. "I think therefore I am".-Let us remember that consciousness is not the same as self-awareness. You accept that animals, with their lesser degree of consciousness (I prefer “intelligence”) may have souls. How about birds, reptiles, fish, insects, bacteria? How do you determine where the line is to be drawn?
 
dhw: Common descent did not begin with hominins. Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution.
DAVID: My limited-to-humans comment did not deny this.-But it ignored the point, which is that the drive to improvement did not begin with humans. When human-type attributes are seen in other life forms, some sceptics dismiss the observations as anthropomorphism, and I am pointing out that through common descent the process may well be the reverse: we inherited these characteristics - we did not invent them and therefore cannot kid ourselves that other organisms do not have them.
 
dhw: The presence of intelligence is shown by WHAT is communicated, not by HOW communication takes place.
DAVID: This bucks up against our usual difference. Intelligent instructions can control communication which appear to be intelligent information.-But whenever we discuss the subject, you emphasize the chemical nature of the communication, as if somehow that invalidated the possibility of thought. Your response in relation to plants was: ”Again you presume too much. Plants use gases and chemicals to communicate through their roots and through the air.” That is totally irrelevant to the claim that they may think.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Monday, December 07, 2015, 22:01 (3034 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Except when it comes to bacteria, and then suddenly you are a firm materialist.
> DAVID: I am a dualist at the consciousness level. "I think therefore I am".
> 
> dhw: Let us remember that consciousness is not the same as self-awareness. You accept that animals, with their lesser degree of consciousness (I prefer “intelligence”) may have souls. How about birds, reptiles, fish, insects, bacteria? How do you determine where the line is to be drawn?-Anything with a brain may have a degree of consciousness. I have no problem with that.-
> 
> dhw: Common descent did not begin with hominins. Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution.
> DAVID: My limited-to-humans comment did not deny this.
> 
> dhw: and I am pointing out that through common descent the process may well be the reverse: we inherited these characteristics - we did not invent them and therefore cannot kid ourselves that other organisms do not have them.-I have said all along there is a drive to complexity which is seen in all branches of evolution.
> 
> dhw: The presence of intelligence is shown by WHAT is communicated, not by HOW communication takes place.-> DAVID: This bucks up against our usual difference. Intelligent instructions can control communication which appear to be intelligent information.
> 
> dhw: But whenever we discuss the subject, you emphasize the chemical nature of the communication, as if somehow that invalidated the possibility of thought. Your response in relation to plants was: ”Again you presume too much. Plants use gases and chemicals to communicate through their roots and through the air.” That is totally irrelevant to the claim that they may think.-Matt answered this elsewhere; of course it invalidates 'thought' at the one cell level. I will never back down until there is scientific proof of your thesis. Note Matt's entry about the book about Eva Jablonka, who was part of the Altenburg 16, is well into information and semiotics as an important part of evolutionary development.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2015, 21:04 (3033 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: Let us remember that consciousness is not the same as self-awareness. You accept that animals, with their lesser degree of consciousness (I prefer “intelligence”) may have souls. How about birds, reptiles, fish, insects, bacteria? How do you determine where the line is to be drawn?
DAVID: Anything with a brain may have a degree of consciousness. I have no problem with that.-Since it's a matter of degree, theoretically that should allow our weaverbird, egg-on-spider-laying wasp, monarch butterfly, ants and bees the possibility of doing their own thing, as opposed to being preprogrammed. You just don't think they're intelligent enough.-dhw: Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution. [...]
DAVID: I have said all along there is a drive to complexity which is seen in all branches of evolution.-Then we agree that your drive to complexity, which is my quest or drive for improvement, goes all the way back to single-celled organisms. The same history applies, of course, to many other characteristics which some people consider to be uniquely human. (This is not aimed at you personally. I am making a general observation.) There are many people who believe that altruism, grief, fear, love, stress etc. are strictly human attributes, and it is ”anthropomorphic” to ascribe them to our fellow creatures. The same attitude used to be (and sometimes still is) applied even to other members of the human race. 
 
dhw: The presence of intelligence is shown by WHAT is communicated, not by HOW communication takes place.
DAVID: This bucks up against our usual difference. Intelligent instructions can control communication which appear to be intelligent information.
dhw: But whenever we discuss the subject, you emphasize the chemical nature of the communication, as if somehow that invalidated the possibility of thought. Your response in relation to plants was: ”Again you presume too much. Plants use gases and chemicals to communicate through their roots and through the air.” That is totally irrelevant to the claim that they may think.
DAVID: Matt answered this elsewhere; of course it invalidates 'thought' at the one cell level. I will never back down until there is scientific proof of your thesis. -Bacteria communicate through chemicals. Plants also communicate through chemicals. Animals use chemicals. Even we use chemicals. How does this ‘invalidate' thought? I know you will never back down. I am only pointing out that you use an irrelevant argument to support your case. I sympathize with the need for scientific proof, but actually this is not MY thesis: it comes from some experts in the field who are convinced that they have the proof. But obviously not enough for you to open your mind just a tiny crack.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 09, 2015, 00:50 (3033 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Anything with a brain may have a degree of consciousness. I have no problem with that.
> 
> dhw: Since it's a matter of degree, theoretically that should allow our weaverbird, egg-on-spider-laying wasp, monarch butterfly, ants and bees the possibility of doing their own thing, as opposed to being preprogrammed. You just don't think they're intelligent enough.-No, I've agreed they might have an onboard inventive mechanism/
> 
> dhw: Then we agree that your drive to complexity, which is my quest or drive for improvement, goes all the way back to single-celled organisms.-Yes, it has to exist back then. Bacteria had no reason to become more complex. -> dhw: The same history applies, of course, to many other characteristics which some people consider to be uniquely human. (This is not aimed at you personally. I am making a general observation.) There are many people who believe that altruism, grief, fear, love, stress etc. are strictly human attributes, and it is ”anthropomorphic” to ascribe them to our fellow creatures.-Many animals show those characteristics. 
> 
> dhw: Bacteria communicate through chemicals. Plants also communicate through chemicals. Animals use chemicals. Even we use chemicals. How does this ‘invalidate' thought? I know you will never back down. I am only pointing out that you use an irrelevant argument to support your case. I sympathize with the need for scientific proof, but actually this is not MY thesis: it comes from some experts in the field who are convinced that they have the proof. But obviously not enough for you to open your mind just a tiny crack.-It's funny but the ID scientists haven't cracked either.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Wednesday, December 09, 2015, 13:32 (3033 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Anything with a brain may have a degree of consciousness. I have no problem with that.
dhw: Since it's a matter of degree, theoretically that should allow our weaverbird, egg-on-spider-laying wasp, monarch butterfly, ants and bees the possibility of doing their own thing, as opposed to being preprogrammed. You just don't think they're intelligent enough.-DAVID: No, I've agreed they might have an onboard inventive mechanism.-But you have never agreed that the mechanism might be autonomous. That is why you like to have your God “guiding” the weaverbird, the wasp and the monarch. If God does the guiding, the inventive mechanism is not inventive.-dhw: Bacteria communicate through chemicals. Plants also communicate through chemicals. Animals use chemicals. Even we use chemicals. How does this ‘invalidate' thought? I know you will never back down. I am only pointing out that you use an irrelevant argument to support your case. I sympathize with the need for scientific proof, but actually this is not MY thesis: it comes from some experts in the field who are convinced that they have the proof. But obviously not enough for you to open your mind just a tiny crack.
DAVID: It's funny but the ID scientists haven't cracked either.-I really don't know what this has to do with ID. The possibility of God designing cells as thinking beings and not automatons does not in any way run counter to ID. It only runs counter to the belief that your God predetermined the course of evolution in order to produce humans - and that is a totally philosophical, totally unscientific hypothesis.
 
Xxxxxxxxxxxx-BBELLA: It would seem to me that no matter how many different kinds of rocks (and how did they become different kinds in the first place) joined together for eternity, rocks could not create an intelligent human unless there was already intelligence at work in the process - from the beginning (?), always.
dhw: See above. Not rocks. All the non-living substances that eventually combined to make the first cells. 
DAVID: I'm with Bbella. Non-living substances could not make life without intelligence leading the way.-But BBella is not with you, as she does not view “intelligence” as a single, self-aware mind that created ATI. However, she and I are still discussing what is meant by “intelligence” in her concept of ATI. My panpsychist hypothesis that some kind of basic awareness evolved within non-living substances also has intelligence leading the way, but it is just as nebulous and far-fetched as your own, that supreme and sourceless self-aware intelligence has existed for ever.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 09, 2015, 15:45 (3033 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: No, I've agreed they might have an onboard inventive mechanism.
> 
> dhw: But you have never agreed that the mechanism might be autonomous. That is why you like to have your God “guiding” the weaverbird, the wasp and the monarch. If God does the guiding, the inventive mechanism is not inventive.-I'll try explaining my version of semi-autonomous again: the organism invents a modificiation which is allowed by onboard restrictions instructions. Basically, " you an try this but not that".
> DAVID: It's funny but the ID scientists haven't cracked either.
> 
> dhw: I really don't know what this has to do with ID. -Because I follow their theories and am in agreement with them and I present it here.- 
> Xxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> BBELLA: It would seem to me that no matter how many different kinds of rocks (and how did they become different kinds in the first place) joined together for eternity, rocks could not create an intelligent human unless there was already intelligence at work in the process - from the beginning (?), always.
> dhw: See above. Not rocks. All the non-living substances that eventually combined to make the first cells. 
> DAVID: I'm with Bbella. Non-living substances could not make life without intelligence leading the way.
> 
> dhw: But BBella is not with you, as she does not view “intelligence” as a single, self-aware mind that created ATI. However, she and I are still discussing what is meant by “intelligence” in her concept of ATI. -My agreement with her is simply that intelligence is required to create our reality. We can all debate the type and source of it, but intelligence is required.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Thursday, December 10, 2015, 11:55 (3032 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: No, I've agreed they might have an onboard inventive mechanism.
dhw: But you have never agreed that the mechanism might be autonomous. That is why you like to have your God “guiding” the weaverbird, the wasp and the monarch. If God does the guiding, the inventive mechanism is not inventive.-DAVID: I'll try explaining my version of semi-autonomous again: the organism invents a modificiation which is allowed by onboard restrictions instructions. Basically, " you an try this but not that".-Modifications are not inventions, and the major question would be how the proto-pattern originates. Modifications also require intelligence, but I'm afraid your “onboard restriction instructions” simply take us back to what the nature of the organism allows, plus the restrictions imposed by the environment. There is nothing inventive in such instructions. “You can try this but not that” seems to offer the weaverbird a list of options: a twiggy nest, a leafy nest, a flat/round/simple/complicated nest, but not a brick or corrugated iron nest, or a spiral staircase/sliding roof/double glazed nest. Again, not what I would call inventiveness. I agree that Wally's nest is a modification, and that makes it all the more surprising to me that you should think he is not intelligent enough to design it without God's “guidance”. But I am inclined to think that the earliest birds would also have had the autonomous intelligence to invent their proto-nests, later modified by Wally and others, rather than God having to preprogramme them or give them private tuition.
 
DAVID: It's funny but the ID scientists haven't cracked either.
dhw: I really don't know what this has to do with ID. 
DAVID: Because I follow their theories and am in agreement with them and I present it here.-As a matter of interest, do your ID scientists specifically claim that God preprogrammed the first cells so that evolution would produce human beings plus multiple other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders whose purpose would be to feed humans? And do they claim that God created bacteria as automatons and not autonomous beings? Those are the two theories we are discussing.
 
DAVID: I'm with Bbella. Non-living substances could not make life without intelligence leading the way.
dhw: But BBella is not with you, as she does not view “intelligence” as a single, self-aware mind that created ATI. However, she and I are still discussing what is meant by “intelligence” in her concept of ATI. 
DAVID: My agreement with her is simply that intelligence is required to create our reality. We can all debate the type and source of it, but intelligence is required.-I agree too, and the type and source of intelligence are indeed the subject of our debate.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 10, 2015, 16:30 (3032 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Modifications are not inventions, and the major question would be how the proto-pattern originates. Modifications also require intelligence, but I'm afraid your “onboard restriction instructions” simply take us back to what the nature of the organism allows, plus the restrictions imposed by the environment.-The one-toed horse is a modification in the way that I theorize. The whale series requires God. In my thinking it is as simple as that.-> dhw: But I am inclined to think that the earliest birds would also have had the autonomous intelligence to invent their proto-nests, later modified by Wally and others, rather than God having to preprogramme them or give them private tuition.-Without any evidence, your suppositions and mine are just that. Most bird nests are simple pallet-like structures with a circular pattern from blue birds to eagles. I've seen them. Wally Weaver's nest is not in the pattern. As the outlier he is difficult to explain. I've seen his nest in my travels. Since it takes most of his life to build, it doesn't demonstrate any economy of action, which one ould expect in an evolutionary process.
> 
> dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID scientists specifically claim that God preprogrammed the first cells so that evolution would produce human beings plus multiple other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders whose purpose would be to feed humans?-Many of them don't accept any aspect of Darwin's theory, are not sure evolution occurred as envisioned by you and I. They tend to deride theistic evolution, as does a recent book on the subject(I haven't read it).-> dhw: And do they claim that God created bacteria as automatons and not autonomous beings?-That is their attitude as I interpret it.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Friday, December 11, 2015, 20:32 (3030 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The one-toed horse is a modification in the way that I theorize. The whale series requires God. In my thinking it is as simple as that.-I agree that the one-toed horse is a modification, and it does not require the inventive intelligence we see in the whale series. In my thinking, the modifying process and the inventive process would (I use the conditional tense, because it is a hypothesis) both require cooperation between autonomous intelligent cell communities. I wouldn't call either of them simple, but I wouldn't call a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every evolutionary innovation simple either.-dhw: But I am inclined to think that the earliest birds would also have had the autonomous intelligence to invent their proto-nests, later modified by Wally and others... -DAVID: Without any evidence, your suppositions and mine are just that. Most bird nests are simple pallet-like structures with a circular pattern from blue birds to eagles. I've seen them. Wally Weaver's nest is not in the pattern. As the outlier he is difficult to explain. I've seen his nest in my travels. Since it takes most of his life to build, it doesn't demonstrate any economy of action, which one would expect in an evolutionary process.-I have seen pictures of Wally's nest, and I fully acknowledge its extraordinary nature. I am not an expert in weaverbird psychology, but I can't help wondering why your God would go to such trouble to preprogramme the first cells with weaverbird-nest instructions, or give private nest-building tuition to the weaverbird, and I just don't believe that its nest is vital for human food supply. Like the rest of the higgledy-piggledy bush apparently geared to the production of humans, “it doesn't demonstrate any economy of action, which one would expect in a specially designed process.” But then I am not an expert in God psychology either.-dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID scientists specifically claim that God preprogrammed the first cells so that evolution would produce human beings plus multiple other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders whose purpose would be to feed humans?
DAVID: Many of them don't accept any aspect of Darwin's theory, are not sure evolution occurred as envisioned by you and I. They tend to deride theistic evolution, as does a recent book on the subject (I haven't read it).-So when you claim that you follow and agree with their theories, these do not include the one about God preprogramming the first cells with all the evolutionary innovations from bacteria to humans. So I wonder if there is any scientist on Earth who supports this theory.-dhw: And do they claim that God created bacteria as automatons and not autonomous beings?
DAVID: That is their attitude as I interpret it.-Thank you for the important, eye-twinkling modification.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 12, 2015, 01:16 (3030 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I agree that the one-toed horse is a modification, and it does not require the inventive intelligence we see in the whale series.... but I wouldn't call a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every evolutionary innovation simple either.-Remember I don't know either whether the program exists. It is just one of several possibilities if God guides evolution.
> 
> dhw: I have seen pictures of Wally's nest, and I fully acknowledge its extraordinary nature. I am not an expert in weaverbird psychology, but I can't help wondering why your God would go to such trouble to preprogramme the first cells with weaverbird-nest instructions, .... But then I am not an expert in God psychology either.-As above, and before, I have no idea how God guided evolution, but I'm sure he did.-
> 
> dhw: As a matter of interest, do your ID scientists specifically claim that God preprogrammed the first cells so that evolution would produce human beings plus multiple other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders whose purpose would be to feed humans?-> DAVID: Many of them don't accept any aspect of Darwin's theory, are not sure evolution occurred as envisioned by you and I. They tend to deride theistic evolution, as does a recent book on the subject (I haven't read it).
> 
> dhw: So when you claim that you follow and agree with their theories, these do not include the one about God preprogramming the first cells with all the evolutionary innovations from bacteria to humans. So I wonder if there is any scientist on Earth who supports this theory.-Yes, theistic evolutionists, and the Christians in ID hate them.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Saturday, December 12, 2015, 15:06 (3030 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I agree that the one-toed horse is a modification, and it does not require the inventive intelligence we see in the whale series.... but I wouldn't call a 3.8-billion-year old computer programme for every evolutionary innovation simple either.
DAVID: Remember I don't know either whether the program exists. It is just one of several possibilities if God guides evolution.-The only other possibilities you have come up with so far are divine dabbling or a watered-down version of my autonomous inventive mechanism which is neither autonomous nor inventive.-dhw: I am not an expert in weaverbird psychology, but I can't help wondering why your God would go to such trouble to preprogramme the first cells with weaverbird-nest instructions, .... But then I am not an expert in God psychology either.

DAVID: As above, and before, I have no idea how God guided evolution, but I'm sure he did.-That still doesn't explain why he would “guide” the weaverbird to build its weird nest, or why he would “guide” other organisms extant or extinct to do equally weird and wonderful things. I doubt if even you believe they are/were necessary to balance Nature in such a way that it would provide food for humans. But it is one of the wonders of faith that one can believe in something even if one has no idea how or why...That is not meant ironically. I respect your faith, and I have no answers of my own.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Saturday, December 12, 2015, 15:55 (3030 days ago) @ dhw

[/i]
> DAVID: As above, and before, I have no idea how God guided evolution, but I'm sure he did.
> 
> dhw: That still doesn't explain why he would “guide” the weaverbird to build its weird nest, or why he would “guide” other organisms extant or extinct to do equally weird and wonderful things.... But it is one of the wonders of faith that one can believe in something even if one has no idea how or why...That is not meant ironically. I respect your faith, and I have no answers of my own.-I'm not the only one. The book: Nature's I.Q., extraordinary animal behaviors that defy evolution , 2009, has more than 100 examples. The authors, who believe in ID, (one is a theologian) use the weaver bird. They demonstrate the intricate types of weaving knots the birds use. They point to the obvious, only a complete nest is useful and therefore the nest was not developed stepwise. They conclude, since all nests are exactly the same for each type of weaver: "they simply obey a series of instincts programmed into them. They are unable to revise or modify the 'program'."-Always the two, 'how' and 'why'. Note again, you want to know 'why'. They don't care about 'why', but the simple observation of such events indicate to them and me intelligent planning did it. There is no other explanation, so why ask why? The 'how' answer is obvious.-It occurs to me that if you would delve deeper, see the intricacy of the knots, instead of superficially looking at pictures of the nests, you would better understand the point of view. I have brought you all sorts of information to support my point of view, but my submissions and discussions are much more superficial than if you did your own study. I know how busy you are, but!

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Sunday, December 13, 2015, 15:24 (3029 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: ...I have no idea how God guided evolution, but I'm sure he did.
dhw: That still doesn't explain why he would “guide” the weaverbird to build its weird nest, or why he would “guide” other organisms extant or extinct to do equally weird and wonderful things.... -DAVID: I'm not the only one. The book: Nature's I.Q., extraordinary animal behaviors that defy evolution , 2009, has more than 100 examples. The authors, who believe in ID, (one is a theologian) use the weaver bird. They demonstrate the intricate types of weaving knots the birds use. They point to the obvious, only a complete nest is useful and therefore the nest was not developed stepwise. They conclude, since all nests are exactly the same for each type of weaver: "they simply obey a series of instincts programmed into them. They are unable to revise or modify the 'program'."-The problem is not what happens once an invention proves successful. We do not seek to revise or modify the programme that runs our heart, eyes, liver, digestion system etc. Once the proto-nest was built and approved of by natural selection (it obviously worked for the weaverbird), there would be no reason for it to change unless it was confronted with new challenges. Why was it built in the first place? No idea. Ask a weaverbird. Why did God do it if all he wanted was to create humans? I shouldn't ask.
 
DAVID: Always the two, 'how' and 'why'. Note again, you want to know 'why'. They don't care about 'why', but the simple observation of such events indicate to them and me intelligent planning did it. There is no other explanation, so why ask why? The 'how' answer is obvious.-I agree that intelligence did it, but the question of preprogramming/dabbling versus autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) has been our dispute all along. And it is not the design argument that I am challenging, but your anthropocentric theology, which not surprisingly the authors of the book apparently do not deal with. 
 
DAVID: It occurs to me that if you would delve deeper, see the intricacy of the knots, instead of superficially looking at pictures of the nests, you would better understand the point of view. I have brought you all sorts of information to support my point of view, but my submissions and discussions are much more superficial than if you did your own study. I know how busy you are, but!-I really and truly don't have the time or desire to go off and study weaverbirds' nests, but they are only one example of the great chasm between the argument for design and the argument for your anthropocentric ”arrow of purpose”, which under “A new synthesis” you admit you “do not fully understand” , which I would phrase as “it doesn't make sense”.
 
I listened to the Noble lecture, which reaffirms our own long-held scepticism towards random mutations and gradualism, and the importance of epigenetic processes which you have frequently highlighted for us and which fit in nicely with an autonomous inventive mechanism. However, he says: “The genome is an 'organ' of the cell not its dictator. Control is distributed.” This runs contrary to your belief that any controlling mechanism has to be in the genome (I have always bowed to your superior knowledge of these matters). I also noted Noble's admiration for McClintock and Shapiro - two champions of the concept of cellular intelligence.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Sunday, December 13, 2015, 19:37 (3028 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The problem is not what happens once an invention proves successful. We do not seek to revise or modify the programme that runs our heart, eyes, liver, digestion system etc. Once the proto-nest was built and approved of by natural selection (it obviously worked for the weaverbird), there would be no reason for it to change unless it was confronted with new challenges. Why was it built in the first place?-To answer your postulates, we only see fully invented nests, with their complex knots. This raises many logical issues: What advantage does such a complex nest offer the weaver? Egg protection? Many other birds do this in simpler ways with simpler nests. Was the entire nest invented before use? What the use of one-quarter a nest, if it was developed in stages? What advantage does it have for a weaver if it takes most of the bird's life? The simplest logical answer is they were given the design.-> 
> dhw: I agree that intelligence did it, but the question of preprogramming/dabbling versus autonomous intelligence (perhaps God-given) has been our dispute all along. And it is not the design argument that I am challenging, but your anthropocentric theology, which not surprisingly the authors of the book apparently do not deal with. -At least we agree intelligence is required. The anthropocentric aspect of evolution was not a point considered in their book.-> 
> dhw: I really and truly don't have the time or desire to go off and study weaverbirds' nests, but they are only one example of the great chasm between the argument for design and the argument for your anthropocentric ”arrow of purpose”, which under “A new synthesis” you admit you “do not fully understand” , which I would phrase as “it doesn't make sense”.-I do understand your necessary busy-ness. It is not just weavers, but the book has about 100 examples that make the point, Why do the migrating animals migrate as far as they do, and how did they figure out how to do it? If I see the many examples of design planning the authors describe, it is easy to make the jump that the 'illogical' arrival of humans was also designed.
> 
> dhw: I listened to the Noble lecture, which reaffirms our own long-held scepticism towards random mutations and gradualism, and the importance of epigenetic processes which you have frequently highlighted for us and which fit in nicely with an autonomous inventive mechanism. However, he says: “The genome is an 'organ' of the cell not its dictator. Control is distributed.” This runs contrary to your belief that any controlling mechanism has to be in the genome.-I'm sorry if I confused you. There are many layers of controls over gene expression which are technically not part of DNA as the genome. I've lumped all the controls together, and that is technically incorrect in my mental shorthand. The histones have controls, the ribosomes have controls, the telomeres have controls to name some of the complexities.-> dhw:I also noted Noble's admiration for McClintock and Shapiro - two champions of the concept of cellular intelligence.-I have the same admiration.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Monday, December 14, 2015, 12:15 (3028 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The problem is not what happens once an invention proves successful. We do not seek to revise or modify the programme that runs our heart, eyes, liver, digestion system etc. Once the proto-nest was built and approved of by natural selection (it obviously worked for the weaverbird), there would be no reason for it to change unless it was confronted with new challenges. Why was it built in the first place?-DAVID: To answer your postulates, we only see fully invented nests, with their complex knots. This raises many logical issues: What advantage does such a complex nest offer the weaver? Egg protection? Many other birds do this in simpler ways with simpler nests. Was the entire nest invented before use? What the use of one-quarter a nest, if it was developed in stages? What advantage does it have for a weaver if it takes most of the bird's life? The simplest logical answer is they were given the design.-You are asking some highly pertinent questions. The bottom line is that we do not understand the need for such a complex nest. That is the perfect image for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. Why is it illogical for the weaverbird to build such an unnecessarily complicated nest, and yet logical if your God designed it (even though his purpose was to produce humans)? The simplest logical answer is that organisms do their own thing, and it is their particular type of intelligence that enables them to do it in their particular (in this case very complicated) way.
 
DAVID: At least we agree intelligence is required. The anthropocentric aspect of evolution was not a point considered in their book.-And so the vital question remains: why would your God design the apparently illogical weaverbird's nest, especially if all he wanted to do was produce humans? If every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder created by living organisms requires intelligence, and if your God did not plan or dabble them all, the intelligence can only be that of the organisms themselves. -DAVID: It is not just weavers, but the book has about 100 examples that make the point, Why do the migrating animals migrate as far as they do, and how did they figure out how to do it? If I see the many examples of design planning the authors describe, it is easy to make the jump that the 'illogical' arrival of humans was also designed.-Same again. If it's illogical for the plover to fly 2000 miles, why did your God make him do it? Once you question the logic of these natural wonders, you are actually questioning your God's logic, and the simplest answer is as above. Every innovation is a designed jump, and if it works, it survives. That would apply to every new species, including the earliest hominins and their successors. If they were specially designed, so was the duckbilled platypus, which according to your logic suggests that God's purpose was to produce the duckbilled platypus. (However, hypotheses 2 and 3 remain as options for special treatment.) 
 
dhw: [Noble] says: “The genome is an 'organ' of the cell not its dictator. Control is distributed.” This runs contrary to your belief that any controlling mechanism has to be in the genome.
DAVID:I'm sorry if I confused you. There are many layers of controls over gene expression which are technically not part of DNA as the genome. I've lumped all the controls together, and that is technically incorrect in my mental shorthand. The histones have controls, the ribosomes have controls, the telomeres have controls to name some of the complexities.-Thank you. That explains why these eminent scientists talk of the intelligent cell rather than the intelligent genome.-dhw:I also noted Noble's admiration for McClintock and Shapiro - two champions of the concept of cellular intelligence.
DAVID: I have the same admiration.-I know you do. That is why it is all the more surprising that you reject their views on cellular intelligence as “absolutely wrong”.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Monday, December 14, 2015, 15:30 (3028 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: You are asking some highly pertinent questions. The bottom line is that we do not understand the need for such a complex nest. That is the perfect image for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. Why is it illogical for the weaverbird to build such an unnecessarily complicated nest, and yet logical if your God designed it[?]-You've neatly sidestepped the issue of "was it built in stages or all at once?" My highly pertinent questions lead to a logical conclusion: it had to be planned in advance.-> dhw: The simplest logical answer is that organisms do their own thing, and it is their particular type of intelligence that enables them to do it in their particular (in this case very complicated) way.-That is the issue. Too complicated to avoid planning. Your assumed approach implies stepwise development.
> 
> dhw: And so the vital question remains: why would your God design the apparently illogical weaverbird's nest, especially if all he wanted to do was produce humans? If every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder created by living organisms requires intelligence, and if your God did not plan or dabble them all, the intelligence can only be that of the organisms themselves.-That is your 'if' about God. Of course he either dabbled or pre-planned. My dilemma has the usual two horns!- 
> dhw: If it's illogical for the plover to fly 2000 miles, why did your God make him do it? Once you question the logic of these natural wonders, you are actually questioning your God's logic, and the simplest answer is as above. Every innovation is a designed jump, and if it works, it survives.-Here is the wide gulf of our thinking. I'm not questioning God's logic. Only He could plan such amazing jumps of complexity in lifestyles.-> dhw: That would apply to every new species, including the earliest hominins and their successors. If they were specially designed, so was the duckbilled platypus, which according to your logic suggests that God's purpose was to produce the duckbilled platypus. -Logic demands that God did all of the designing, to explain the complexity. Evolutionary theory as you and I view it requires a drive to complexity and challenges by environment to cause adaptive responses. Where did a drive to complexity come from? Why did humans arrive when there is no demonstrated requirement or need? Simple: God did it. -> 
> dhw:I also noted Noble's admiration for McClintock and Shapiro - two champions of the concept of cellular intelligence.
> DAVID: I have the same admiration.
> 
> I know you do. That is why it is all the more surprising that you reject their views on cellular intelligence as “absolutely wrong”.-Same answer: intelligence and intelligent design look the same.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Tuesday, December 15, 2015, 22:13 (3026 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: The bottom line is that we do not understand the need for such a complex nest. That is the perfect image for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. Why is it illogical for the weaverbird to build such an unnecessarily complicated nest, and yet logical if your God designed it?
DAVID: You've neatly sidestepped the issue of "was it built in stages or all at once?" My highly pertinent questions lead to a logical conclusion: it had to be planned in advance.-How on earth do you expect me to know if it was built in stages? However, a nest is not like an organ, which either functions or doesn't. For all we know, the complexities may well have been added in stages, and as Matt has suggested, generations may have learned by observation. Meanwhile, you have not so neatly sidestepped the question I asked you, in response to your point that such a complex nest was unnecessary. Why would your God create such an unnecessarily complex nest when his aim was to produce humans? 
 
dhw: If it's illogical for the plover to fly 2000 miles, why did your God make him do it? Once you question the logic of these natural wonders, you are actually questioning your God's logic... 
DAVID: Here is the wide gulf of our thinking. I'm not questioning God's logic. Only He could plan such amazing jumps of complexity in lifestyles.-You have not made the connection. You have asked why weaverbirds build such unnecessarily complex nests and why plovers fly such vast distances, and you insist that God made them do it. So I look forward to hearing why you think your God made them do such unnecessary things.
 
dhw: That would apply to every new species, including the earliest hominins and their successors. If they were specially designed, so was the duckbilled platypus, which according to your logic suggests that God's purpose was to produce the duckbilled platypus. 
DAVID: Logic demands that God did all of the designing, to explain the complexity. Evolutionary theory as you and I view it requires a drive to complexity and challenges by environment to cause adaptive responses. Where did a drive to complexity come from? Why did humans arrive when there is no demonstrated requirement or need? Simple: God did it.-It is possible that the drive to complexity came from your God. I have even given you two alternative theistic hypotheses that allow a special place for humans. You could not deny their feasibility, and both of them got you off the hook of having to explain the necessity of the weaverbird's nest and the plover's flight (not to mention the unrequired arrival of the duckbilled platypus) for the production of humans. Please note, this part of our discussion is devoted to your personal reading of God's mind, not to God's existence. 
 
dhw: I also noted Noble's admiration for McClintock and Shapiro - two champions of the concept of cellular intelligence.
DAVID: I have the same admiration.
Dhw: I know you do. That is why it is all the more surprising that you reject their views on cellular intelligence as “absolutely wrong”.
DAVID: Same answer: intelligence and intelligent design look the same.-How does that justify dismissing the conclusions of such respected scientists as “absolutely wrong”? Why not stick to the 50/50 you agreed to in the past?

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 00:26 (3026 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: You've neatly sidestepped the issue of "was it built in stages or all at once?" My highly pertinent questions lead to a logical conclusion: it had to be planned in advance.
> 
> How on earth do you expect me to know if it was built in stages? However, a nest is not like an organ, which either functions or doesn't. For all we know, the complexities may well have been added in stages, and as Matt has suggested, generations may have learned by observation.
Unless you look at the pictures of the knots you will not fully understand the point of my rhetorical question. Is half a nest functional? And this is a very complex nest. And the little weavers looked on and learned. Not reasonable.-> dhw: Meanwhile, you have not so neatly sidestepped the question I asked you, in response to your point that such a complex nest was unnecessary. Why would your God create such an unnecessarily complex nest when his aim was to produce humans? -I've told you, I don't know, but I'm sure the nest was designed by God.
 
> dhw: You have not made the connection. You have asked why weaverbirds build such unnecessarily complex nests and why plovers fly such vast distances, and you insist that God made them do it. So I look forward to hearing why you think your God made them do such unnecessary things.-I have no idea why He had them do these complex things and lifestyles, but I cannot see how the animals learned to do it by themselves. total difference in viewpoint.-> 
> dhw: It is possible that the drive to complexity came from your God. I have even given you two alternative theistic hypotheses that allow a special place for humans.... Please note, this part of our discussion is devoted to your personal reading of God's mind, not to God's existence. -I'm where I am because I cannot explain the unnecessary arrival of humans any other way of theorizing..-> 
>dhw: How does that justify dismissing the conclusions of such respected scientists as “absolutely wrong”? Why not stick to the 50/50 you agreed to in the past?-50/50 are the reasonable odds since there are only two choices, but the studies I read lead me to 90/10 controlled by onboard information. This is instructional information which allows the protein molecules to function cooperatively to create life. Each protein is not alive. the complex is following instructions.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Wednesday, December 16, 2015, 22:18 (3025 days ago) @ David Turell

Rather than go through your posts point by point, I will summarize:-You believe the weaverbird's nest and the plover's migration are too complex for the birds to have worked out for themselves. Therefore God must have preprogrammed them 3.8 billion years ago or given them private tuition. You don't know why he would make them do such unnecessarily complicated things, particularly when all he wanted was to produce humans. Humans are special because Nature did not require them to be produced. As bacteria have survived, Nature did not require any of the subsequent millions of species, lifestyles and natural wonders to be produced either, but you don't know why God designed them all, except that perhaps they were necessary for the production or feeding of humans. Under “A new synthesis”, you do not consider any of these gaps to be holes in your theory. And finally, you respect and admire certain scientists who are convinced that cells are intelligent beings, but you have read books that argue the contrary, and so you are sure that the respected and admired scientists are absolutely wrong.-I hope that is a fair summary, and the answer to the question asked by this thread is going to be the key to future progress on the subject. Just how intelligent are the organisms from which we are all descended? Thank you for the article on parrots using tools and for the many other articles you have posted on the subject of animal (and bird and insect and plant) minds. Every one of them opens new windows onto the intelligence of our fellow organisms, or alternatively adds new items to God's 3.8-billion-year-old list of Things to Programme (or Things Requiring a Dabble). I fear neither of us will be around when the winner is announced...

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 17, 2015, 01:04 (3025 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I hope that is a fair summary, and the answer to the question asked by this thread is going to be the key to future progress on the subject. Just how intelligent are the organisms from which we are all descended?-Very fair review of my thoughts. You know my thoughts about intelligence and consciousness. Humans are different in kind, not degree. Of course there is a degree of intelligence in the organisms that preceded us in evolution, and of course it increases regularly as evolution reaches the primate level. We've covered all this before.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Thursday, December 17, 2015, 19:25 (3024 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I hope that is a fair summary, and the answer to the question asked by this thread is going to be the key to future progress on the subject. Just how intelligent are the organisms from which we are all descended?-DAVID: Very fair review of my thoughts. You know my thoughts about intelligence and consciousness. Humans are different in kind, not degree. Of course there is a degree of intelligence in the organisms that preceded us in evolution, and of course it increases regularly as evolution reaches the primate level. We've covered all this before.-We have, but my hypothesis that evolution is driven by an autonomously inventive intelligence depends on a different sort of intelligence from ours. You constantly emphasize that we are different in kind, but what you cannot contemplate is that other organisms may have one form of intelligence that is actually superior to our own. And yet you constantly alert us to the fact that cell communities can do things we can't even begin to match with our consciousness, and we need all our human type of intelligence just to unravel the way they work. With every natural wonder, we ask, ”How do they do it? How do they know?” Your answer is always that they don't do it and they don't know. Your God has preprogrammed them or instructed them personally. Mine is that maybe your God gave them the means to work it out for themselves. But you cannot contemplate this possibility because of your fixation on human consciousness as the be-all and end-all of your God's purpose.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 17, 2015, 21:41 (3024 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: You constantly emphasize that we are different in kind, but what you cannot contemplate is that other organisms may have one form of intelligence that is actually superior to our own. -And what is that superior intelligence you are postulating? -> dhw:And yet you constantly alert us to the fact that cell communities can do things we can't even begin to match with our consciousness, and we need all our human type of intelligence just to unravel the way they work.-Simple God programmed in the kind of information/instructions that handle it.-> dhw: Mine is that maybe your God gave them the means to work it out for themselves.-I've agreed to an inventive mechanism within limits of guidelines.-> dhw: But you cannot contemplate this possibility because of your fixation on human consciousness as the be-all and end-all of your God's purpose.-It can all fit together. Evolution is one process with different guided parts and it ends with conscious humans.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 14, 2015, 16:01 (3028 days ago) @ dhw

You are asking some highly pertinent questions. The bottom line is that we do not understand the need for such a complex nest. That is the perfect image for the higgledy-piggledy bush of evolution. Why is it illogical for the weaverbird to build such an unnecessarily complicated nest, and yet logical if your God designed it (even though his purpose was to produce humans)? The simplest logical answer is that organisms do their own thing, and it is their particular type of intelligence that enables them to do it in their particular (in this case very complicated) way.-Why can't the explanation be simply that weaver birds are subject to not just genetic and epigenetic evolution, but behavioral evolution as well? If we start with the assumption that the weaving is behavior that is picked up on by birds watching other birds, it is a fact that if bird A watches bird B build the nest with some quirk, that the quirk would at least be partially copied? How many several such quirks--and copying mistakes--would it take to have a nest design that is overcomplicated? To me, at best you could say that a God gave weaver birds the intelligence to be subject to behavioral evolution, but to go beyond that is borderline determinism. -And to play devil's advocate, how much intelligence is really in copying behavior anyway?-There's no need here for an assumption that the plan for the weaverbird's nest is somehow embedded in the first ever living thing. In fact, if you're not careful here about how you define how this information is stored, we can disprove the idea.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Monday, December 14, 2015, 18:13 (3027 days ago) @ xeno6696


> Matt: Why can't the explanation be simply that weaver birds are subject to not just genetic and epigenetic evolution, but behavioral evolution as well? If we start with the assumption that the weaving is behavior that is picked up on by birds watching other birds, it is a fact that if bird A watches bird B build the nest with some quirk, that the quirk would at least be partially copied? -As I pointed out to dhw, if you look at the pictures of the complex knots, it would require a bird to inventively sit there and watch the nest-builder weaver at his task. And this presumes the entire nest building is known, since a half a nest is no nest at all.
 
> Matt: And to play devil's advocate, how much intelligence is really in copying behavior anyway?-Not much. Young animals are taught this way all the time.
> 
> Matt: There's no need here for an assumption that the plan for the weaverbird's nest is somehow embedded in the first ever living thing. In fact, if you're not careful here about how you define how this information is stored, we can disprove the idea.-Tell us how.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, December 07, 2015, 13:10 (3035 days ago) @ dhw

Jumping in a set of words that popped out...-> My evolutionary “drive to improvement” depends on this sense. NB: for those of us who believe in common descent, it is logical that humans would have inherited this drive - as opposed to being its originators.
> DAVID: Of course. Early hominins are today's Homo.
> 
> Common descent did not begin with hominins. Common descent goes back to the first forms of life, and if they had not had the “drive to improvement”, there would have been no evolution.
> -Agreed, although to me, the only "drive" in evolution is the instinctive desire to stay alive, one of the few instincts that we *know* all life forms have. (Even the non-sentient ones.) Evolution can move "forwards" or "backwards." To be a hero, you don't need to step forward, if everyone else steps back!-I'll be posting about a "new synthesis" soon, inspired by the work of Jablowski that discusses four "levels" of evolution and actually incorporates conscious choice into the mix. -> dhw: Here are more quotes from Denyse O'Leary's brilliant article:
> DAVID: I thought you'd like it. Her background is as a devout clear-thinking Catholic.
> 
> Then it will be interesting to see how much autonomous intelligence she attributes to our fellow creatures.
> 
> QUOTE: “Life forms communicate with each other to a degree that often surprises researchers [...] evidence suggests that plants can communicate too [...] Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand.”
> 
> DAVID: Again you presume too much. Plants use gases and chemicals to communicate through their roots and through the air. There is much and growing research on this aspect of their lives. 
> 
> This is not just my presumption. You have kindly posted many articles emphasizing the mental activities of even the lowliest organisms. But for some reason, you always focus on the means of communication, which in all organisms - including ourselves - rely on automatic processes. The presence of intelligence is shown by WHAT is communicated, not by HOW communication takes place.
> -Ants and bees are also sentient, and communicate via scent and in the case of bees, through dance. Chemical communication between plants isn't a far stretch at all, especially considering the role of beneficial fungi. -
I'm just jumping in half-cocked here, so I apologize if I'm not actually assisting...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by BBella @, Saturday, December 05, 2015, 22:42 (3036 days ago) @ dhw

Here are more quotes from Denyse O'Leary's brilliant article:
> 
> QUOTE: “Human consciousness is difficult to define and "arguably the central issue in current theorizing about the mind," even though we experience it all our waking hours. If we can't even define our own consciousness, can we say whether a different type of life form has consciousness or a mind?”
> 
> We can't, and so we should remain open-minded.-Exactly.-> 
> QUOTE: “Some current philosophers have reasoned away the problem by positing that rocks have minds too.”-For now, we believe the lowly rock is just a mere, lifeless, extra hard bundle of dirt. Just as we once believed (certain races of) humans, animals, plants, etc were unintelligent. Possibly, with patience and "open-mindedness" we may one day find, just as Rumi said many years ago (paraphrasing), intelligence is just asleep in the rocks. 
 
> What follows is a defence of panpsychism, though the philosopher Jim Holt does not say so here. Many panpsychists are theists, and believe everything began with intelligence, but we have also discussed the hypothesis that everything began with mindless energy and matter, and intelligence evolved from their interaction.-And don't forget the hypothesis that intelligence, energy and matter always existed together with no beginning.-> QUOTE: “Life forms communicate with each other to a degree that often surprises researchers. Prey animals, for example, warn predators of the danger of eating them or advise other prey that a hiding place is taken. But evidence suggests that plants can communicate too. The Scientist tells us: Researchers are unearthing evidence that, far from being unresponsive and uncommunicative organisms, plants engage in regular conversation...Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand.”-As an aside, I had mentioned in one of our discussions early on, about studies of plant communication and even plants appearing to express emotion. If I remember right, I remember reading about these early studies in the 70's.-> You don't have to believe it, but you have to be very stubborn indeed to disbelieve it.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Monday, December 07, 2015, 12:42 (3035 days ago) @ BBella

QUOTE: “Some current philosophers have reasoned away the problem by positing that rocks have minds too.”-BBELLA: For now, we believe the lowly rock is just a mere, lifeless, extra hard bundle of dirt. Just as we once believed (certain races of) humans, animals, plants, etc were unintelligent. Possibly, with patience and "open-mindedness" we may one day find, just as Rumi said many years ago (paraphrasing), intelligence is just asleep in the rocks.-Once again, there is a problem of definition here, because I think of intelligence in terms of awareness, sentience, processing and communicating information, cooperating, taking decisions etc. (not the sort of “life force” you have outlined earlier). However, the possibility that “my” form of intelligence evolved in inorganic matter is central to the hypothesis that life is the product of such individual intelligences cooperating. There is a passage in David's latest post under “Genome complexity” that is very striking: “But the ribosome itself has changed over time. Its history shows how simple molecules joined forces to invent biology...” What is later called the “mind-boggling” complexity would then be the result of 3.8 thousand million years of intelligences “joining forces”.
 
DHW: What follows is a defence of panpsychism, though the philosopher Jim Holt does not say so here. Many panpsychists are theists, and believe everything began with intelligence, but we have also discussed the hypothesis that everything began with mindless energy and matter, and intelligence evolved from their interaction.

BBELLA: And don't forget the hypothesis that intelligence, energy and matter always existed together with no beginning.-Again, we are probably talking of a different form of “intelligence”.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by BBella @, Tuesday, December 08, 2015, 06:22 (3034 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: “Some current philosophers have reasoned away the problem by positing that rocks have minds too.”
> 
> BBELLA: For now, we believe the lowly rock is just a mere, lifeless, extra hard bundle of dirt. Just as we once believed (certain races of) humans, animals, plants, etc were unintelligent. Possibly, with patience and "open-mindedness" we may one day find, just as Rumi said many years ago (paraphrasing), intelligence is just asleep in the rocks.
> 
> Once again, there is a problem of definition here, because I think of intelligence in terms of awareness, sentience, processing and communicating information, cooperating, taking decisions etc. (not the sort of “life force” you have outlined earlier). -A rock or any "thing" that IS, is in the process of cooperating being what it IS or it would be no thing. I don't think I would call that life force. But I do understand where you are coming from with the common view of intelligence.->However, the possibility that “my” form of intelligence evolved in inorganic matter is central to the hypothesis that life is the product of such individual intelligences cooperating. -Intelligence evolved from unintelligent matter? Is that not saying a human evolved from a rock?->There is a passage in David's latest post under “Genome complexity” that is very striking: “But the ribosome itself has changed over time. Its history shows how simple molecules joined forces to invent biology...” What is later called the “mind-boggling” complexity would then be the result of 3.8 thousand million years of intelligences “joining forces”.-It would seem to me that no matter how many different kinds of rocks (and how did they become different kinds in the first place) joined together for eternity, rocks could not create an intelligent human unless there was already intelligence at work in the process - from the beginning (?), always.-> DHW: What follows is a defence of panpsychism, though the philosopher Jim Holt does not say so here. Many panpsychists are theists, and believe everything began with intelligence, but we have also discussed the hypothesis that everything began with mindless energy and matter, and intelligence evolved from their interaction.
> 
> BBELLA: And don't forget the hypothesis that intelligence, energy and matter always existed together with no beginning.
> 
> Again, we are probably talking of a different form of “intelligence”.-To me, intelligence is intelligence. Intelligence can show itself in different forms (rock or human), but it's still intelligence at work.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Tuesday, December 08, 2015, 15:11 (3034 days ago) @ BBella

dhw: However, the possibility that “my” form of intelligence evolved in inorganic matter is central to the hypothesis that life is the product of such individual intelligences cooperating. 
> 
> Bbella: Intelligence evolved from unintelligent matter? Is that not saying a human evolved from a rock?
> > 
> > dhw: Again, we are probably talking of a different form of “intelligence”.
> 
> Bbella: To me, intelligence is intelligence. Intelligence can show itself in different forms (rock or human), but it's still intelligence at work.-I don't think innate intelligence in organisms developed until the first neurons appeared, developed networks and rudimentary brains in the Cambrian.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Tuesday, December 08, 2015, 21:16 (3033 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: Possibly, with patience and "open-mindedness" we may one day find, just as Rumi said many years ago (paraphrasing), intelligence is just asleep in the rocks.
DHW: Once again, there is a problem of definition here, because I think of intelligence in terms of awareness, sentience, processing and communicating information, cooperating, taking decisions etc. (not the sort of “life force” you have outlined earlier). 
BBELLA: A rock or any "thing" that IS, is in the process of cooperating being what it IS or it would be no thing. I don't think I would call that life force. But I do understand where you are coming from with the common view of intelligence. [Later in the same post]: To me, intelligence is intelligence. Intelligence can show itself in different forms (rock or human), but it's still intelligence at work.-Of course I accept that something is not no-thing, but if intelligence does not have the attributes I have listed, I don't see what the word adds to the fact of things existing. You might as well call it the xyz present in ATI. Matt may be able to help us: is there a word in any eastern philosophy that denotes a form of ”intelligence” in all things, without carrying the attributes listed above? 
 
dhw: However, the possibility that “my” form of intelligence evolved in inorganic matter is central to the hypothesis that life is the product of such individual intelligences cooperating. 
BBELLA: Intelligence evolved from unintelligent matter? Is that not saying a human evolved from a rock?-Definitely not! We don't know what life is, but all living things are a composition of non-living matter combined in a certain way. Somehow it's the combination that gives rise to life. A materialist might argue that a certain combination also gives rise to thought and consciousness: a process of “emergence”, which makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. What I am referring to are the substances that eventually combined to make the first living cell, and these may at some point have become aware of other substances around them. (It's no more nebulous than positing a sourceless eternal intelligence of whatever kind.) Perhaps it would help if we distinguished life from non-life. I know you think earthly life may have been started by extraterrestrial beings, but they must also have had a source, so what is your own hypothesis about how life itself began - or do you think there have been living material beings throughout eternity? 
 
Dhw: There is a passage in David's latest post under “Genome complexity” that is very striking: “But the ribosome itself has changed over time. Its history shows how simple molecules joined forces to invent biology...” What is later called the “mind-boggling” complexity would then be the result of 3.8 thousand million years of intelligences “joining forces”.
BBELLA: It would seem to me that no matter how many different kinds of rocks (and how did they become different kinds in the first place) joined together for eternity, rocks could not create an intelligent human unless there was already intelligence at work in the process - from the beginning (?), always.-See above. Not rocks. All the non-living substances that eventually combined to make the first cells.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Wednesday, December 09, 2015, 00:55 (3033 days ago) @ dhw


> Dhw: There is a passage in David's latest post under “Genome complexity” that is very striking: “But the ribosome itself has changed over time. Its history shows how simple molecules joined forces to invent biology...” What is later called the “mind-boggling” complexity would then be the result of 3.8 thousand million years of intelligences “joining forces”.-> BBELLA: It would seem to me that no matter how many different kinds of rocks (and how did they become different kinds in the first place) joined together for eternity, rocks could not create an intelligent human unless there was already intelligence at work in the process - from the beginning (?), always.
> 
> dhw: See above. Not rocks. All the non-living substances that eventually combined to make the first cells.-I'm with Bbella. Non-living substances could not make life without intelligence leading the way.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by BBella @, Thursday, December 10, 2015, 06:01 (3032 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: However, the possibility that “my” form of intelligence evolved in inorganic matter is central to the hypothesis that life is the product of such individual intelligences cooperating. 
> BBELLA: Intelligence evolved from unintelligent matter? Is that not saying a human evolved from a rock?
> 
> Definitely not! We don't know what life is, but all living things are a composition of non-living matter combined in a certain way. Somehow it's the combination that gives rise to life.[..]What I am referring to are the substances that eventually combined to make the first living cell, and these may at some point have become aware of other substances around them. -Just imagine you are observing two inorganic substances floating in space waiting for them to "combine". You would be waiting forever! You would never see them suddenly become aware of each other - unless, there was at least a smidgen of intelligence present to process the situation. That seems to me to just be common sense.->(It's no more nebulous than positing a sourceless eternal intelligence of whatever kind.) -I think it much more nebulous that two different floating pieces of dead matter ( how did they become different in the first place?) suddenly become "aware" of each other, shared some dust, mated, and gave birth to a living cell - than an eternal intelligent presence within all that is, always at work combining energy and matter eventually coming up with a living cell - and the rest is history. ->Perhaps it would help if we distinguished life from non-life. I know you think earthly life may have been started by extraterrestrial beings, but they must also have had a source, so what is your own hypothesis about how life itself began - or do you think there have been living material beings throughout eternity? -I believe there has always been eternal intelligence, matter and energy, though I can't imagine how long life as we know it has been around.
 
> Dhw: There is a passage in David's latest post under “Genome complexity” that is very striking: “But the ribosome itself has changed over time. Its history shows how simple molecules joined forces to invent biology...” What is later called the “mind-boggling” complexity would then be the result of 3.8 thousand million years of intelligences “joining forces”.
> BBELLA: It would seem to me that no matter how many different kinds of rocks (and how did they become different kinds in the first place) joined together for eternity, rocks could not create an intelligent human unless there was already intelligence at work in the process - from the beginning (?), always.
> 
> See above. Not rocks. All the non-living substances that eventually combined to make the first cells.-At this point, if a substance is non-living, it may as well be a rock. What is the difference between a rock and non-living substance?

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Thursday, December 10, 2015, 12:29 (3032 days ago) @ BBella

I think it's important to point out straight away that I have great difficulty with ALL the hypotheses on offer, including my own! That is why I am unable to believe any of them. I have switched the order of your comments, BBella, because this one is the key to our discussion: -Dhw: : Perhaps it would help if we distinguished life from non-life. I know you think earthly life may have been started by extraterrestrial beings, but they must also have had a source, so what is your own hypothesis about how life itself began - or do you think there have been living material beings throughout eternity? -BBELLA: I believe there has always been eternal intelligence, matter and energy, though I can't imagine how long life as we know it has been around.-We do not know the origin of life. The only life we know of is our own, and it must have had a beginning. (If its source was extraterrestrial beings, they must have had a beginning too, so that just shifts the problem.) We can join the materialist/atheist brigade and say that all the necessary substances joined together by chance, but neither you nor David nor I find that convincing. What are the (to me equally unconvincing) alternatives? We all agree they must entail some form of intelligence that does the combining. And that is where the three of us dive into different unknowns. David is quite clear: there is a single self-aware, planning, decision-making mind that has always been in existence and that consciously assembled the pieces with a specific purpose. You reject that concept, but the form of intelligence you envisage has none of those attributes. It seems to have no attributes at all. But whatever it is, you think it is present in everything that exists. This brings us to the following remarks:-BBELLA: Just imagine you are observing two inorganic substances floating in space waiting for them to "combine". You would be waiting forever! You would never see them suddenly become aware of each other - unless, there was at least a smidgen of intelligence present to process the situation. That seems to me to just be common sense.-(dhw: [My hypothesis] is no more nebulous than positing a sourceless eternal intelligence of whatever kind.) -BBELLA: I think it much more nebulous that two different floating pieces of dead matter ( how did they become different in the first place?) suddenly become "aware" of each other, shared some dust, mated, and gave birth to a living cell - than an eternal intelligent presence within all that is, always at work combining energy and matter eventually coming up with a living cell - and the rest is history. -Your hypothesis and mine actually converge, with one important exception. Matter and energy eternally forming new combinations and “eventually coming up with a living cell” is fine with me. It would also be fine with atheistic materialists, because eternity allows for an infinite number of combinations, and they would argue that intelligence is not needed. However, once we bring in intelligence, you and I diverge. Once again, I cannot separate it from awareness - even if it's only a smidgen. If we reject chance as the assembler of life's constituents, then the substances must have been deliberately assembled by some outside, CONSCIOUS intelligence (David's God) or a CONSCIOUS intelligence inside themselves. I can believe that the first cells had a degree of awareness that enabled them eventually to combine and evolve, but I struggle to accept the idea that lifeless matter - let alone ALL lifeless matter - has that same awareness, even a smidgen of it, and has been deliberately forming different combinations for ever and ever before “eventually coming up with a living cell”. Was that its aim all along, or do you think it was just messing about and happened to hit the jackpot?-These comments may seem irrelevant to you, because you reject the equation of intelligence with awareness, but as I keep saying, intelligence without such attributes has no meaning for me. Intelligence without awareness leaves the origin of life to chance. 
 
To redress the balance, I also struggle with the idea that non-living matter can “become” aware. I agree with your objections. And so, in true agnostic style, I offer possible explanations and believe none of them. More fool me, because one of them must be close to the truth!-BBELLA: ... if a substance is non-living, it may as well be a rock. What is the difference between a rock and non-living substance?-We only know that certain non-living substances mixed together in a particular way have given rise to life. All the substances individually are non-living. In that sense, you can say they are the same as a rock, but that does not mean that humans are descended from rocks! We are descended from those non-living substances that combined to make life.

Animal Minds; bacterial cooperation

by David Turell @, Thursday, December 10, 2015, 16:03 (3032 days ago) @ dhw

Groups of bacteria can share in different responsibilities and exclude the cheaters!-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151208133443.htm-"In natural microbial communities, different bacterial species often exchange nutrients by releasing amino acids and vitamins into their growth environment, thus feeding other bacterial cells. Even though the released nutrients are energetically costly to produce, bacteria benefit from nutrients their bacterial partners provide in return. Hence, this process is a cooperative exchange of metabolites. Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology and the Friedrich Schiller University in Jena have shown that bacteria, which do not actively contribute to metabolite production, can be excluded from the cooperative benefits. The research team demonstrated that cooperative cross-feeding interactions that grow on two-dimensional surfaces are protected from being exploited by opportunistic, non-cooperating bacteria. Under these conditions, non-cooperating bacteria are spatially excluded from the exchanged amino acids. This protective effect probably stabilizes cooperative cross-feeding interactions in the long-run. -***-"The fact that such a simple principle can effectively stabilize such a complex interaction suggests that similar phenomena may play important roles in natural bacterial communities," Christian Kost states. After all, bacteria occur predominantly in so-called biofilms -- these are surface-attached slime layers that consist of many bacterial species. Known examples include bacteria causing dental plaque or bacterial communities that are used in wastewater treatment plants. Moreover, biofilms are highly relevant for medical research: They do not only play important roles for many infectious diseases by protecting bacterial pathogens from antibiotics or the patients' immune responses, but are also highly problematic when colonizing and spreading on the surfaces of medical implants.-"This new study has elucidated that cooperating bacteria form cell clusters and in this way exclude non-cooperating bacteria from their community. "The importance of this mechanism is due to the fact that no complicated or newly-evolved condition, such as the recognition of potential cooperation partners, needs to be fulfilled to effectively stabilize this long-term partnership. Two cooperating bacterial strains and a two-dimensional surface are sufficient for this protective effect to occur," explains Kost."-Comment: This study shows a mechanism but not how it works through biochemical signals. It raises the same issue, intelligence vs. automatism through intelligently placed information instructions.

Animal Minds; bacterial cooperation

by dhw, Friday, December 11, 2015, 20:25 (3030 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Groups of bacteria can share in different responsibilities and exclude the cheaters!-http:/h/www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151208133443.htm-David's comment: This study shows a mechanism but not how it works through biochemical signals. It raises the same issue, intelligence vs. automatism through intelligently placed information instructions.-Thank you another interesting insight into bacterial society. I would suggest that the biochemical signals would denote the means of communication, not how the message is compiled. “Intelligently placed informational instructions” is a fine sounding phrase. I presume it means that your God preprogrammed bacteria for every single situation in which they needed to adapt to changing circumstances, cooperate, exclude the cheaters etc. etc., rather than his simply giving them the intelligence to work things out for themselves.

Animal Minds; bacterial cooperation

by David Turell @, Friday, December 11, 2015, 21:13 (3030 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: Thank you another interesting insight into bacterial society. I would suggest that the biochemical signals would denote the means of communication, not how the message is compiled. “Intelligently placed informational instructions” is a fine sounding phrase. I presume it means that your God preprogrammed bacteria for every single situation in which they needed to adapt to changing circumstances, cooperate, exclude the cheaters etc. etc., rather than his simply giving them the intelligence to work things out for themselves.-You presume too much. We know bacteria have quorum sensing. Simply this: if Bobby bacteria is exchanging nutrients with Betty but not Boris, he ignores Boris. Wa-la, isolation. It is just tit for tat. The instructions simply are: 'do unto others'.

Animal Minds; bacterial electrical signals

by David Turell @, Friday, January 13, 2017, 20:46 (2631 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacteria in mats do communicate by electrical signals:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/bacteria-recruit-other-species-with-electronic-messa...

" New research shows these microorganisms can send messages to potential new recruits in an effort to strengthen their communities known as biofilms.

"These signals from within the biofilm can influence the behaviour of nearby bacteria – even those of different species – recruiting them to come and join the ranks.
“We’ve discovered that bacterial biofilm communities can actively modulate the motile behaviour of diverse bacterial species through electrical signals,” says University of California, San Diego molecular biologist Gürol Süel.

“'In this way, bacteria within biofilms can exert long-range and dynamic control over the behaviour of distant cells that are not part of their communities.”

"Biofilms are communities of single-celled organisms that stick to a surface using a self-produced glue-like substance – like the plaque found on our teeth.

"In 2015, Süel and his team discovered that bacteria living within a biofilm can communicate with each other via electrical signals, similar to the way messages are passed on by neurons in our brains.

"These signals are sent using extracellular potassium, which produces electrical waves that are broadcast through the biofilm. These signals control things such as cell metabolism and help ensure the entire biofilm gets enough sustenance to survive.

"The team’s latest study, published in the journal Cell, focuses on a biofilm of Bacillus subtilis, a bacterium found in our gastrointestinal tracts, which the researchers housed in a growth chamber along with other bacterial communities.

"According to the research, B. subtilis sent out potassium signals which managed to alter the membranes of cells outside their own biofilm, and even to diverse species of bacteria.

"This signalling method successfully recruited Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a bacterium which can cause disease in animals and humans, into the B. subtilis biofilm.

“'This electrically mediated attraction appears to be a generic mechanism that enables cross-species interactions,” the research team writes in the paper.

“'Cells within a biofilm community can thus not only coordinate their own behaviour but also influence the behaviour of diverse bacteria at a distance through long-range electrical signalling.”

"The work shines a light on how bacteria, including those found in our intestines, go about propagating and maintaining their communities.

“'Our latest discovery suggests that the composition of mixed species bacterial communities, such as our gut microbiome, could be regulated through electrical signalling,” Süel says. "

Comment: note the bold. Potassium is in high concentration within cells. This appears to be a release of some ionized potassium, which has an electrical charge to do the signaling. I suspect the bacteria receiving the electric signal then respond automatically to it.

Animal Minds; bacterial electrical signals

by dhw, Saturday, January 14, 2017, 12:59 (2631 days ago) @ David Turell

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/bacteria-recruit-other-species-with-electronic-messa...

QUOTE: "Think bacteria aren’t sophisticated? Think again. New research shows these microorganisms can send messages to potential new recruits in an effort to strengthen their communities known as biofilms."

QUOTE: "These signals are sent using extracellular potassium, which produces electrical waves that are broadcast through the biofilm. These signals control things such as cell metabolism and help ensure the entire biofilm gets enough sustenance to survive.” (David’s bold)

David’s comment: note the bold. Potassium is in high concentration within cells. This appears to be a release of some ionized potassium, which has an electrical charge to do the signaling. I suspect the bacteria receiving the electric signal then respond automatically to it.

I suspect that the bacteria deliberately and intelligently use their available means of communication (electrical waves) to recruit new members in order to strengthen their community, as the researchers tell us, and I suspect that the bacteria receiving the message deliberately and intelligently work out the meaning of the signals and deliberately and intelligently respond to them. Worth repeating the quote here: “Think bacteria aren’t sophisticated? Think again.”

Animal Minds; bacterial electrical signals

by David Turell @, Saturday, January 14, 2017, 15:51 (2631 days ago) @ dhw


David’s comment: note the bold. Potassium is in high concentration within cells. This appears to be a release of some ionized potassium, which has an electrical charge to do the signaling. I suspect the bacteria receiving the electric signal then respond automatically to it.

dhw: I suspect that the bacteria deliberately and intelligently use their available means of communication (electrical waves) to recruit new members in order to strengthen their community, as the researchers tell us, and I suspect that the bacteria receiving the message deliberately and intelligently work out the meaning of the signals and deliberately and intelligently respond to them. Worth repeating the quote here: “Think bacteria aren’t sophisticated? Think again.”

They certainly appear more sophisticated than suspected. That doesn't mean the whole process isn't automatic

Animal Minds; bacterial electrical signals

by David Turell @, Tuesday, January 24, 2017, 15:53 (2621 days ago) @ David Turell

Bacteria can sense each other and can perform coordinated movements in groups:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/erratic-bacteria-swarm-and-shimmy-as-one?utm_source=...

"We know that bacteria communicate with one another through electrical messaging, and now new research suggests erratically moving cells combine to engage in a kind of synchronised dance in order to self-organise – a process known as collective oscillation.

"Collective oscillation is a functional part of many natural processes, from the cellular development of embryos to the regulation of neuronal behaviour in the brain.
Now physicists in China, France and Hong Kong have observed and filmed millions of Escherichia coli cells moving in seemingly random ways are actually forming weakly synchronised patterns in the form of long, languid circles (which you can see in the video above).

"To spot this pattern of self-organisation, the team averaged the erratic movements of each cell over thousands of micrometres.

“'We find that millions of motile cells in dense bacterial suspensions can self-organise into highly robust collective oscillatory motion,” the researchers write in Nature.

"The team believes this synchronised dance, which is controlled by local interactions between cells, could inspire new strategies to control the self-organisation of robot swarms."

Comment: Be sure to look at the video. Of course nature can teach us, the final comment of the article. Multicellularity had to start with this type of interaction.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Thursday, April 13, 2017, 15:40 (2542 days ago) @ dhw

The mirror test is used to probe the issue of self-awareness in animals. Out a mirror in front of a chimp and he does notice things about himself, but what does it mean?

http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/what-do-animals-see-in-a-mirror-rp?utm_source=N...

"Showing chimpanzees their reflections seemed like a fascinating little experiment when he first tried it in the summer of 1969. He didn’t imagine that this would become one of the most influential—and most controversial—tests in comparative psychology, ushering the mind into the realm of experimental science and foreshadowing questions on the depth of animal suffering. “It’s not the ability to recognize yourself in a mirror that is important,” he would come to believe. “It’s what that says about your ability to conceive of yourself in the first place.”

***

"Gallup wasn’t the first to come up with the notion that it might be significant if a person or animal recognizes itself in the mirror. He would only later learn that Charles Darwin had shown mirrors to orangutans, but they didn’t figure the mirror out, at least while he was watching. Darwin had also noted that, for their first few years, his children couldn’t recognize themselves in their reflections. In 1889, German researcher Wilhelm Preyer became the first to posit a connection between mirror self-recognition and an inner sense of self in people.
 
"More than 50 years later, French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan conceived of a childhood “mirror stage,” in which mirrors contribute to the formation of the ego. By 1972, developmental psychologists started using mark tests similar to Gallup’s to pin down the age at which children begin to recognize themselves in the mirror: 18 to 24 months.

***

"As for why dolphins and other non-primates recognize themselves in mirrors, Gallup isn’t yet convinced they do. He suggests an alternative explanation for why his former student’s dolphins wriggled in the mirror: to see marks on what they perceived as another dolphin peering back at them. And he requires replication of recent studies finding that elephants use their trunks to touch white crosses on their foreheads, and magpies dislodge stickers on their chests with their beaks.

***

"Then there are researchers who discount whether the mirror test says anything about theory of mind in any animal, including humans. Most notably, Gallup’s mentee, Daniel Povinelli. ... He’s come to believe that a chimp doesn’t need to have an integrated sense of self in order to pass the mirror test. Instead, it needs only to notice that the body in the mirror looks and moves the same as its own body, and then make the connection that if there’s a spot on the body in the mirror, there could also be a spot on its own body. That ability would still be pretty sophisticated, Povinelli adds,

***

" To apply Povinelli’s logic to humans, we may think deep, reflective thoughts when using a mirror to brush our teeth, but that doesn’t mean that the part of the brain that’s using the mirror to direct our toothbrush is the same part of the brain that’s contemplating the self. Those two abilities may develop at the same time in children, but that does not mean that they’re related, much less one and the same. 

"Povinelli’s critiques aside, most comparative psychologists say there’s something to mirror recognition, not least because it’s only been observed in intellectually superior animals. Neuroscientists are now trying to shed light on the matter by searching for a physical basis for the ability in the brain. Although they haven’t found a clear signal yet, Gallup remains undeterred. After nearly 45 years of fending off challengers, he is not likely to wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and change his mind."

Comment: We can imply too much to animals recognizing themselves in the mirror. They do but that does not mean they have complex thoughts, concepts, or any form or deep introspection. We are different in kind as we look in the mirror.

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by dhw, Friday, April 14, 2017, 11:27 (2541 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: The mirror test is used to probe the issue of self-awareness in animals. Out a mirror in front of a chimp and he does notice things about himself, but what does it mean?
http://nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/what-do-animals-see-in-a-mirror-rp?utm_source=N...

QUOTE: "Showing chimpanzees their reflections seemed like a fascinating little experiment when he first tried it in the summer of 1969. He didn’t imagine that this would become one of the most influential—and most controversial—tests in comparative psychology, ushering the mind into the realm of experimental science and foreshadowing questions on the depth of animal suffering. “ (My bold)

DAVID’s comment: We can imply too much to animals recognizing themselves in the mirror. They do but that does not mean they have complex thoughts, concepts, or any form or deep introspection. We are different in kind as we look in the mirror.

I don’t think the researchers are trying to prove that our fellow animals have the thoughts, concepts and deep introspection of humans. It is all a matter of degree. Speaking purely for myself, and acknowledging that I can’t prove it, I have no doubt that when one of our fellow animals yelps or squeaks with pain, or runs away from a predator, it experiences pain and fear just as we do, and is aware of its pain and fear. The mirror is not the only test of self-awareness!

Animal Minds; how much can we learn about them?

by David Turell @, Friday, April 14, 2017, 15:12 (2541 days ago) @ dhw


dhw: I don’t think the researchers are trying to prove that our fellow animals have the thoughts, concepts and deep introspection of humans. It is all a matter of degree. Speaking purely for myself, and acknowledging that I can’t prove it, I have no doubt that when one of our fellow animals yelps or squeaks with pain, or runs away from a predator, it experiences pain and fear just as we do, and is aware of its pain and fear. The mirror is not the only test of self-awareness!

I can only agree.We live out in the country with lots of different types of natural predators prowling, and we hear the sounds you describe.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by David Turell @, Tuesday, March 20, 2018, 14:16 (2201 days ago) @ David Turell

Termites recognize the kings and queens by body smell from a hydrocarbon body coating the upper class wears. Other insects use the same controls:

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/posh-pong-for-top-termites

"Who sees the queen in the empire of the blind? That’s a very pertinent question for entomologists who study termites – sightless social insects that live in vast colonies united in the service of a fertile royal couple.

"Non-royal termites – the overwhelming majority of any colony – behave differently towards kings and queens than to each other, but until recently the simple question of how they recognised royalty had been unanswered.

"Now, researchers led by Coby Schal of North Carolina State University in the US have found the answer. Royal termites exude a wax-like hydrocarbon called heneicosane that acts as a signal, informing the blind workers when they are in the presence of the posh.

“'This is the first report of a queen recognition pheromone in termites and the first report of a king recognition pheromone in insects,” says Schal.

"To make their finding, the researchers used gas chromatography to identify chemicals present on the exoskeletons on royal and non-royal termites belonging to the species Reticulitermes flavipes. Heneicosane was found only on kings and queens.

"When the substance was applied to termite-sized glass dummies, workers coming into contact with them started to shake – a kind of royal greeting. The shaking grew in intensity when the heneicosane was mixed with another pheromone found on the workers themselves, which thus represents the smell of the colony.

“'Termites use a two-step recognition process – the colony’s odour gives workers a ‘home’ context and heneicosane within this context denotes ‘royals are in the home’,” Schal says.
Ants, bees and social wasps are also known to use hydrocarbons as identification signals for colony royalty.

"'The discovery of the same process in termites is significant because despite a superficial similarity in appearance and living arrangements, they are not closely related to ants.

"Ants are members of an order known as Hymenoptera, while termites are classified in the order Isoptera, along with cockroaches.

"Schal and his colleagues say their findings indicate that royal pheromones first evolved about 150 million years ago – around 50 million years before ants started using them. Their presence in both orders, they suggest, is an example of convergent evolution."

Comment: A simple automatic set of controls for hive activity. No need for thought here. Termites are obviously sentient, but not thoughtful. Like ants, automatic.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by dhw, Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 12:45 (2200 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Non-royal termites – the overwhelming majority of any colony – behave differently towards kings and queens than to each other, but until recently the simple question of how they recognised royalty had been unanswered. (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment: A simple automatic set of controls for hive activity. No need for thought here. Termites are obviously sentient, but not thoughtful. Like ants, automatic.

So when all the chemical processes take place enabling me to recognize the Queen, and I behave accordingly, I am obviously sentient but not thoughtful? We do not judge intelligence in ourselves or other organisms by the chemical processes that take place in our bodies. The only criterion for intelligence is behaviour.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by David Turell @, Wednesday, March 21, 2018, 12:52 (2200 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Non-royal termites – the overwhelming majority of any colony – behave differently towards kings and queens than to each other, but until recently the simple question of how they recognised royalty had been unanswered. (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment: A simple automatic set of controls for hive activity. No need for thought here. Termites are obviously sentient, but not thoughtful. Like ants, automatic.

dhw: So when all the chemical processes take place enabling me to recognize the Queen, and I behave accordingly, I am obviously sentient but not thoughtful? We do not judge intelligence in ourselves or other organisms by the chemical processes that take place in our bodies. The only criterion for intelligence is behaviour.

So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by dhw, Thursday, March 22, 2018, 10:34 (2199 days ago) @ David Turell

QUOTE: Non-royal termites – the overwhelming majority of any colony – behave differently towards kings and queens than to each other, but until recently the simple question of how they recognised royalty had been unanswered. (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment: A simple automatic set of controls for hive activity. No need for thought here. Termites are obviously sentient, but not thoughtful. Like ants, automatic.

dhw: So when all the chemical processes take place enabling me to recognize the Queen, and I behave accordingly, I am obviously sentient but not thoughtful? We do not judge intelligence in ourselves or other organisms by the chemical processes that take place in our bodies. The only criterion for intelligence is behaviour.

DAVID: So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

You have missed the point. You always focus on the chemical processes by which organisms perceive things, but it is behaviour that denotes intelligence. Termites, like ants, can solve all sorts of problems. They build whole cities which are so complex that you – with your eagle eye for design – could not possibly attribute them to anything but intelligence. But they are tiny creatures compared to ourselves, and your “large organisms chauvinism”(Shapiro) dictates that tiny creatures can’t be intelligent, so God has to give them “guidelines” (i.e. preprogramme them or do a dabble). And yet at the same time you say that one can’t tell from the outside whether these living creatures are robots or thinking beings. I wonder what size they need to be before you give them the benefit of the doubt!

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Thursday, March 22, 2018, 12:40 (2199 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Non-royal termites – the overwhelming majority of any colony – behave differently towards kings and queens than to each other, but until recently the simple question of how they recognised royalty had been unanswered. (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment: A simple automatic set of controls for hive activity. No need for thought here. Termites are obviously sentient, but not thoughtful. Like ants, automatic.

dhw: So when all the chemical processes take place enabling me to recognize the Queen, and I behave accordingly, I am obviously sentient but not thoughtful? We do not judge intelligence in ourselves or other organisms by the chemical processes that take place in our bodies. The only criterion for intelligence is behaviour.

DAVID: So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

You have missed the point. You always focus on the chemical processes by which organisms perceive things, but it is behaviour that denotes intelligence. Termites, like ants, can solve all sorts of problems. They build whole cities which are so complex that you – with your eagle eye for design – could not possibly attribute them to anything but intelligence. But they are tiny creatures compared to ourselves, and your “large organisms chauvinism”(Shapiro) dictates that tiny creatures can’t be intelligent, so God has to give them “guidelines” (i.e. preprogramme them or do a dabble). And yet at the same time you say that one can’t tell from the outside whether these living creatures are robots or thinking beings. I wonder what size they need to be before you give them the benefit of the doubt!

You didn’t take it far enough dhw!

If ants and termites don’t express intelligence, then the only explanation left is that they evolved that ability by chance.

Termite mounds specifically are a marvel in regards to their design. The cooling system alone is a feat of wonder!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 22, 2018, 14:19 (2199 days ago) @ xeno6696


DAVID: So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

dhw: You have missed the point. You always focus on the chemical processes by which organisms perceive things, but it is behaviour that denotes intelligence. Termites, like ants, can solve all sorts of problems. They build whole cities which are so complex that you – with your eagle eye for design – could not possibly attribute them to anything but intelligence. But they are tiny creatures compared to ourselves, and your “large organisms chauvinism”(Shapiro) dictates that tiny creatures can’t be intelligent, so God has to give them “guidelines” (i.e. preprogramme them or do a dabble). And yet at the same time you say that one can’t tell from the outside whether these living creatures are robots or thinking beings. I wonder what size they need to be before you give them the benefit of the doubt!


Matt: You didn’t take it far enough dhw!

If ants and termites don’t express intelligence, then the only explanation left is that they evolved that ability by chance.

Termite mounds specifically are a marvel in regards to their design. The cooling system alone is a feat of wonder!

Agreed as to wonder.

The other explanation is that they were intelligently programmed.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by xeno6696 @, Sonoran Desert, Monday, August 13, 2018, 08:04 (2055 days ago) @ David Turell


DAVID: So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

dhw: You have missed the point. You always focus on the chemical processes by which organisms perceive things, but it is behaviour that denotes intelligence. Termites, like ants, can solve all sorts of problems. They build whole cities which are so complex that you – with your eagle eye for design – could not possibly attribute them to anything but intelligence. But they are tiny creatures compared to ourselves, and your “large organisms chauvinism”(Shapiro) dictates that tiny creatures can’t be intelligent, so God has to give them “guidelines” (i.e. preprogramme them or do a dabble). And yet at the same time you say that one can’t tell from the outside whether these living creatures are robots or thinking beings. I wonder what size they need to be before you give them the benefit of the doubt!


Matt: You didn’t take it far enough dhw!

If ants and termites don’t express intelligence, then the only explanation left is that they evolved that ability by chance.

Termite mounds specifically are a marvel in regards to their design. The cooling system alone is a feat of wonder!


Agreed as to wonder.

The other explanation is that they were intelligently programmed.

They were. Soley by the direction of (hundreds?) of thousands of automata.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by dhw, Monday, August 13, 2018, 09:12 (2055 days ago) @ xeno6696


DAVID: So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

dhw: You have missed the point. You always focus on the chemical processes by which organisms perceive things, but it is behaviour that denotes intelligence. Termites, like ants, can solve all sorts of problems. They build whole cities which are so complex that you – with your eagle eye for design – could not possibly attribute them to anything but intelligence. But they are tiny creatures compared to ourselves, and your “large organisms chauvinism”(Shapiro) dictates that tiny creatures can’t be intelligent, so God has to give them “guidelines” (i.e. preprogramme them or do a dabble). And yet at the same time you say that one can’t tell from the outside whether these living creatures are robots or thinking beings. I wonder what size they need to be before you give them the benefit of the doubt!


Matt: You didn’t take it far enough dhw!

If ants and termites don’t express intelligence, then the only explanation left is that they evolved that ability by chance.

Termite mounds specifically are a marvel in regards to their design. The cooling system alone is a feat of wonder!


Agreed as to wonder.

The other explanation is that they were intelligently programmed.


They were. Soley by the direction of (hundreds?) of thousands of automata.

[/i]

Very quickly: I'm not quite sure who said what here, but only David would have claimed that the ants were intelligently programmed (i.e. by his God) to build their cities. My proposal is that ants are intelligent enough collectively (i.e. through combining their individual intelligences) to design their own cities. This is part of a much broader theory involving the role of cellular intelligence in evolution, extending as far as the human brain. Maybe we were already discussing this when you last popped in - in which case, not much has changed!

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by David Turell @, Monday, August 13, 2018, 18:47 (2055 days ago) @ xeno6696


DAVID: So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

dhw: You have missed the point. You always focus on the chemical processes by which organisms perceive things, but it is behaviour that denotes intelligence. Termites, like ants, can solve all sorts of problems. They build whole cities which are so complex that you – with your eagle eye for design – could not possibly attribute them to anything but intelligence. But they are tiny creatures compared to ourselves, and your “large organisms chauvinism”(Shapiro) dictates that tiny creatures can’t be intelligent, so God has to give them “guidelines” (i.e. preprogramme them or do a dabble). And yet at the same time you say that one can’t tell from the outside whether these living creatures are robots or thinking beings. I wonder what size they need to be before you give them the benefit of the doubt!


Matt: You didn’t take it far enough dhw!

If ants and termites don’t express intelligence, then the only explanation left is that they evolved that ability by chance.

Termite mounds specifically are a marvel in regards to their design. The cooling system alone is a feat of wonder!


Agreed as to wonder.

The other explanation is that they were intelligently programmed.


They were. Soley by the direction of (hundreds?) of thousands of automata.

Matt, your comments fit intelligent design. Ants have been shown to act automatically as individuals in nest activities. Recently posted here.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by dhw, Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 09:36 (2054 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Matt, your comments fit intelligent design. Ants have been shown to act automatically as individuals in nest activities. Recently posted here.

Sadly, David has omitted a crucial part of the discussion:

dhw: I used ants as an analogy to how cell communities work. The article tells us how leader groups of ants make collective decisions, and the ants at the back follow. That is how I propose cell communities also work: the “leaders” work out what is to be done, and the rest put the decision into operation. If there is a choice, a collective decision is a decision, it is not automatic behaviour.

DAVID: The automatic behavior is in the followers. A leader does make a decision of this way or that way. (dhw's bold)

And that is the whole point. My proposal is that organisms consist of cell communities, and just as the ants have their leaders who take intelligent decisions while the rest automatically follow, the cell communities do the same. Decision-making is a sign of intelligence, and this applies from bacteria through to humans.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by David Turell @, Tuesday, August 14, 2018, 19:05 (2053 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Matt, your comments fit intelligent design. Ants have been shown to act automatically as individuals in nest activities. Recently posted here.

Sadly, David has omitted a crucial part of the discussion:

dhw: I used ants as an analogy to how cell communities work. The article tells us how leader groups of ants make collective decisions, and the ants at the back follow. That is how I propose cell communities also work: the “leaders” work out what is to be done, and the rest put the decision into operation. If there is a choice, a collective decision is a decision, it is not automatic behaviour.

DAVID: The automatic behavior is in the followers. A leader does make a decision of this way or that way. (dhw's bold)

dhw: And that is the whole point. My proposal is that organisms consist of cell communities, and just as the ants have their leaders who take intelligent decisions while the rest automatically follow, the cell communities do the same. Decision-making is a sign of intelligence, and this applies from bacteria through to humans.

The experimental design made a fork in the road, this or that. Picking one is not much decision making.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by dhw, Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 11:08 (2053 days ago) @ David Turell

I am combining lots of posts here, as they all illustrate the same point. But thank you as always for these interesting insights into Nature's Wonders.

Under “Injured plants invite birds for protection

DAVID: The injury draws insects, which attack the plants. The plants emit volatile attractants to birds which can to come and eat the insects.
DAVID: How did the plants learn what would attract birds? Not by chance.

Your God’s 3.8 billion-year-old computer programme passed on by the first cells? God’s direct tuition? Or organismal intelligence? Any alternative explanations?

Under “Endosymbiosis

QUOTE: "The ancestor of today’s Pilostyles rejected life as a green plant living in sunlight, instead worming its way into the body of another plant. Over evolutionary time, Pilostyles has survived ice ages and tectonic plate movements and now exists as ten described species living on five continents. The mysterious Pilostyles reminds us of the incredible tenacity and adaptability of life."

DAVID: Another example of how weird life can be.

And of how organisms autonomously develop their own ways of life – unless you think this behaviour was specially preprogrammed or dabbled by your God.

Under "Bacterial intelligence?"

DAVID’s comment: This is an editorial description of her work, and describes how highly organized and controlled are the systems in any bacteria. It reeks of intelligent design.

dhw: I don’t know why you headed this: “Bacterial intelligence?” The article has nothing to do with the decision-making capabilities of bacteria. All organisms have highly organized and controlled systems that work automatically, and that “reek of intelligent design”. That doesn’t mean they are not intelligent.

DAVID: Headed that way because we are in constant discussion about bacterial intelligence. If all of their activity is automatic, they are no innately intelligent.

But the article has nothing to do with bacterial intelligence. Your “if” is countered by the equally pointless response that if some of their activities are not automatic, then they are innately intelligent! I have reproduced a long list of activities in support of the argument for intelligence, but of course this has been ignored.

On this thread:

DAVID: The automatic behavior is in the followers. A leader does make a decision of this way or that way. (dhw's bold)

dhw: And that is the whole point. My proposal is that organisms consist of cell communities, and just as the ants have their leaders who take intelligent decisions while the rest automatically follow, the cell communities do the same. Decision-making is a sign of intelligence, and this applies from bacteria through to humans.

DAVID: The experimental design made a fork in the road, this or that. Picking one is not much decision making.

Decision-making is decision-making, even if it’s “not much”, and it is the opposite of automatic preprogramming. In any case you know as well as I do that there have been numerous tests to illustrate the intelligence of ants. And the very idea that your God provided the first cells with programmes for ants’ astonishingly complex cities and social structures 3.8 billion years ago, or popped in to give them lessons in architecture and sociology, snaps the elastic of my personal credulity. Especially when there is a much more straightforward theistic alternative which even you recognize as fitting in logically with the history of life on Earth.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by David Turell @, Wednesday, August 15, 2018, 15:33 (2053 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: Under "Bacterial intelligence?"

DAVID’s comment: This is an editorial description of her work, and describes how highly organized and controlled are the systems in any bacteria. It reeks of intelligent design.

dhw: I don’t know why you headed this: “Bacterial intelligence?” The article has nothing to do with the decision-making capabilities of bacteria. All organisms have highly organized and controlled systems that work automatically, and that “reek of intelligent design”. That doesn’t mean they are not intelligent.

DAVID: Headed that way because we are in constant discussion about bacterial intelligence. If all of their activity is automatic, they are no innately intelligent.

dhw: But the article has nothing to do with bacterial intelligence. Your “if” is countered by the equally pointless response that if some of their activities are not automatic, then they are innately intelligent! I have reproduced a long list of activities in support of the argument for intelligence, but of course this has been ignored.

Not ignored. Your vaunted reproductions simply show the activities of the organisms have the appearance of intelligent decisions. Without direct proof, yours is just opinion, as is mine.

Animal Minds; insect cognition

by David Turell @, Monday, August 07, 2023, 00:19 (235 days ago) @ dhw

From Charles Henry Turner's research:

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/living-world/2023/rediscovering-legacy-charles-hen...

“'Turner was one of the first, and you might say should be given the lion’s share of credit, for changing that perception,” says Charles Abramson, a comparative psychologist at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater who has done extensive biographical research on Turner...Turner also challenged the views that animals lacked the capacity for intelligent problem-solving and that they behaved based on instinct or, at best, learned associations, and that individual differences were just noisy data.

***

"In one of his early studies, Turner set out to investigate if spiders built webs through rigid instinct or if they could respond creatively to novel situations. Meadows make for fairly uniform conditions in which to build webs, he wrote in 1892. “But when the external environment becomes more heterogenous, it is interesting to note how the spiders become masters of the situation.” He meticulously described structures of 27 webs he found on windowsills, down railroad embankments, in log piles. “Was this web the result of blind instinct? I think not,” he wrote about an especially contorted web above a hole in a stone wall that effectively cornered insect prey.

"Turner coupled his observations with experiments that forced spiders to deal with awkward spatial challenges in their web-building. He collected spiders and placed them first into cylindrical bottles, where they constructed circular webs, and then moved them into boxes, where a few made rectangular ones. Finally, he destroyed parts of existing webs and found that the spiders came up with clever solutions to efficiently patch them up. All these experiments pointed to a capacity for learning, contradicting the dominant scientific narrative. Although web-weaving is instinctive, Turner concluded, “the details of construction are the products of intelligent action.” (my bold)

***

"In a series of creative experiments that involved running ants of a dozen different species through an elaborate maze, Turner concluded that the creatures weren’t guided by a homing instinct, but instead relied on a variety of cues as well as memory, all coming together as a simple form of learning. In a separate study, he placed an ant on a small island and observed that the ant attempted to build a bridge to the mainland using materials at its disposal. The ant went beyond trial-and-error learning, seeming to size up the situation and come up with a goal-directed solution — something ants were not considered capable of at the time. (my bold)

***

"Without a doubt, the barriers Turner faced in establishing and maintaining his scientific career were extremely steep and were forged by flagrant racism and by the mundane circumstances that it engendered. He found a mentor at the University of Cincinnati, where he completed undergraduate and master’s degrees in 1887 and 1892, respectively. He earned a reputation as diligent and brilliant, which likely helped him gain a position as an assistant lab instructor, something few other Black students would have been considered for. But his luck on that front ran out when he sought a faculty position at the University of Chicago after he finished his PhD in zoology there in 1907, likely the first Black scientist to do so, Abramson says. He was considered for a post, but the professor who invited him to apply died and, according to sociologist and civil rights activist W. E. B. Du Bois, his replacement refused to hire a Black scientist.

"Unable to secure the University of Chicago position, Turner became a science teacher at Sumner High School in St. Louis, the first Black high school west of the Mississippi."

Comment: Turner, as a black Ph.D. was unfortunately ignored. He clearly showed (note my bolds) that instinctual behavior with additional perception created solutions for problems.

Animal Minds; stealth swimmers

by David Turell @, Monday, August 07, 2023, 17:57 (235 days ago) @ David Turell

Fish hiding behind other fish:

https://phys.org/news/2023-08-stealth-swimmers-fish.html

"A new study provides the first experimental evidence that the trumpetfish, Aulostomus maculatus, can conceal itself by swimming closely behind another fish while hunting—and reduce the likelihood of being detected by its prey.

"In this 'shadowing' behavior, the long, thin trumpetfish uses a non-threatening species of fish, such as parrotfish, as camouflage to get closer to its dinner.

"This is the only known example of one non-human animal using another as a form of concealment.

***

"'When a trumpetfish swims closely alongside another species of fish, it's either hidden from its' prey entirely, or seen but not recognized as a predator because the shape is different," said Dr. Sam Matchette, a researcher in the University of Cambridge's Department of Zoology and first author of the study.

***

"'The shadowing behavior of the trumpetfish appears a useful strategy to improve its hunting success. We might see this behavior becoming more common in the future as fewer structures on the reef are available for them to hide behind," said Dr. James Herbert-Read in the University of Cambridge's Department of Zoology, senior author of the study."

Comment: see the pictures to appreciate the trick. This is an instinct that probably started
when a trumpetfish tried it out. Yes, that was an intellectual perception as in Turner's studies.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by dhw, Friday, March 23, 2018, 13:11 (2198 days ago) @ xeno6696

Great to have you back, Matt. Please see under "Autonomy versus Automaticity" for a reply.

Animal Minds; termite automatic class recognition

by David Turell @, Thursday, March 22, 2018, 14:41 (2199 days ago) @ dhw

QUOTE: Non-royal termites – the overwhelming majority of any colony – behave differently towards kings and queens than to each other, but until recently the simple question of how they recognised royalty had been unanswered. (dhw's bold)

DAVID’s comment: A simple automatic set of controls for hive activity. No need for thought here. Termites are obviously sentient, but not thoughtful. Like ants, automatic.

dhw: So when all the chemical processes take place enabling me to recognize the Queen, and I behave accordingly, I am obviously sentient but not thoughtful? We do not judge intelligence in ourselves or other organisms by the chemical processes that take place in our bodies. The only criterion for intelligence is behaviour.

DAVID: So when the hot stove burns your finger, you think before you remove it? Really?

dhw: You have missed the point. You always focus on the chemical processes by which organisms perceive things, but it is behaviour that denotes intelligence. Termites, like ants, can solve all sorts of problems. They build whole cities which are so complex that you – with your eagle eye for design – could not possibly attribute them to anything but intelligence. But they are tiny creatures compared to ourselves, and your “large organisms chauvinism”(Shapiro) dictates that tiny creatures can’t be intelligent, so God has to give them “guidelines” (i.e. preprogramme them or do a dabble). And yet at the same time you say that one can’t tell from the outside whether these living creatures are robots or thinking beings. I wonder what size they need to be before you give them the benefit of the doubt!

See my reply to Matt

RSS Feed of thread
powered by my little forum