|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| madoka wrote: |
"Recent work has brought the notion of cognitive maps up for reconsideration, but the bottom line remains: The mental life of bees includes decision-making that would indicate conscious awareness if performed by vertebrate animals. This is not hard-wired robotic behavior. Honeybees change their minds when conditions change. When looking for a new nest location, for example, scouts report back to the hive and spread the word to their sisters. The scouts will then visit the sites recommended by others, and if they are convinced that the suggested location is better than their previous choice, they change their vote and spread the word to the rest of the hive about the better site. Let that sink in for a moment." |
Of course there's something they left out: the reason "honey bee democracy" works is because the animals are biologically inclined to stop caring about their own preference after a certain amount of time, ensuring an emergent majority:
| Quote: |
Bees are democrats. They vote. When a community of bees has to make a choice, like where to build a new hive, they meet, debate and decide. But here's what they don't do: they don't filibuster. No single bee (or small band of bees) will stand against the majority, insisting and insisting for hours. They can't.
Bee biology prevents it.
U.S. Senators, listen up here. According to Professor Tom Seeley, an entomologist at Cornell University, a hive will send a few hundred "scouts" into a back yard, or into the woods, to find a good nest site. If a particular scout thinks that an elm tree � that one over there � is the best place to build a hive, she will say so, by dancing. Her dance will tell the other bees where to find that special tree .
If she feels really strongly, she will dance with extra energy, for a longer time.
Even if most of the other bees have chosen a different tree, they won't stop her dance, or tell her to be quiet. Or have three-fifths of them invoke "cloture," a fancy way of saying "shut up." They will wait her out.
Then something astonishing happens. I've written about it before, but I want to mention it again, now that our Senators are mulling their next filibuster, because what bees do makes democracy much, much easier � or so it seems.
Different scouts will dance for their different trees. Gradually, a favorite emerges. But what if a particular bee is totally convinced that the tree she has found is so superior that she just keeps dancing and dancing, and won't stop? How does the hive handle a stubborn bee?
The Jimmy Stewart Bee
"We haven't seen any bees like that," Professor Seeley said. None? None, he told me. "In the world of scout bees, you don't have die-hard bees that just dance and dance and dance forever." Why not?
Because, he said, even if a bee feels very, very strongly about her choice and has danced feverishly for as long as she could, once she's done � and no bee can dance forever � she apparently stops caring.
Her enthusiasm drains out of her � Imagine Jimmy Stewart, the young Senator in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington making one glorious big speech, and then plopping down in his chair, dull and blank as a piece of chalk.
The 'Retire And Rest' Hypothesis
That, says Professor Seeley, is what happens to scout bees. They've "voted," they've danced. The other bees are free to visit her tree and see for themselves. But now that she's done her part, her sense of urgency dribbles away. She stops campaigning ...
.. and no longer champions her cause. When the decision is made, she will go with the majority choice, whatever it turns out to be. It's not like she's giving up. She's probably wired this way.
As Professor Seeley puts it, there may be "an internal, neurophysiological process that causes every scout to gradually and automatically lose her motivation to dance for a site, even one that is high in quality."
And this is built in?
"[It's] built in," says Seeley. He calls this his Retire and Rest hypothesis. "And when you think about it," he says, "that works really well." |
Not hard-wired robotic behavior? Bullshit. Is there some great Solon the Lawgiver Bee who handed down their democratic system to them, and said, "Hey, dance like Hell for a few minutes, and then just forget about it and go with the crowd, this shall be the whole of the law?" Is it an innovation? No, they do what they do because given what they are, they cannot do elsewise. That's not profound, it's mechanical. Cool, interesting, but mechanical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| No, they do what they do because given what they are, they cannot do elsewise. That's not profound, it's mechanical. Cool, interesting, but mechanical. |
But you can say that for pretty much any species on the planet...yes?
Or is that your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2013 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| No, they do what they do because given what they are, they cannot do elsewise. That's not profound, it's mechanical. Cool, interesting, but mechanical. |
But you can say that for pretty much any species on the planet...yes?
Or is that your point? |
It is part of my point. Even humans, a genuinely complex species in terms of behavioral variation, are probably ultimately mechanical in nature. If you want to build a solid platform for the defense of humane treatment of animals, it can't be built upon premises which contradict reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
wild honey bees are gone, mostly disappeared, The only hope for the reemergence of wild bees is domestic stock. Mostly bees kept by humans to produce honey. Peta
wants bees to die off?? Lovely. Honey production and sales help small farmers to survive.
Does anyone know what the wages are for senior staff at PETA??
by all means lets kill off bees and pay thousands to fly dogs around the world.
I mean get in touch with nature. i would rather watch heron and geese down at the river, go hiking in the mountains that teaches a true appeciation of nature and is far more valuable than owning a pooch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2013 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "We haven't seen any bees like that," Professor Seeley said. None? None, he told me. "In the world of scout bees, you don't have die-hard bees that just dance and dance and dance forever." Why not? |
Because it's not an important enough point to belabor? It's not like Mr. Smith was filibustering himself into exhaustion over which side of the courtyard a new apartment building would be built. And keep in mind, bees are prone to regicide and coups if they 'feel' the colony is in real danger of extinction.
If we're going to attack the idea of bee cognition (an ultimately futile task seeing as how we lack their umwelt), there's much better methods. Personally, I'd go after pheromones.
----------
I just saw this is my Google newsfeed:
PETA eyes drones to watch hunters, farmers
| Quote: |
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said this week it plans to purchase drones -- small, remote-controlled, camera-carrying aircraft -- to watch for illegal activity among hunters.
In a press release, PETA said it would "monitor those who are out in the woods with death on their minds," using spotlights or feed lures, or drinking alcohol while in possession of a firearm. PETA also intends to fly the remote-controlled aircraft over factory farms, fishing spots and "other venues where animals routinely suffer and die," it said. |
The only part of this I have a serious problem with is watching for people who are drinking... as long as they only plan to use the drones over public land. I have enough issue as it is with the power game wardens have over private land. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| new sport shooting down pETa drones. I often fish,so what will they do euthanize me? the dumbing down of society is almost complete. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Ethical treatment for animals means not unnecessarily harming or killing them. Other than in self-defense or for food (when enough vegetarian food isn't available), I think killing animals can be deemed ethical only when the animals are clearly seen to be in a state of extreme suffering with practically no hope of recovery.
There's an interesting Wikipedia article on sentience, which is related to consciousness. Personalist philosophies consider the Absolute Truth to be the sentient Original Person, to whom all other sentient beings are related in various ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience Hence, personalists tend to have a deep philosophical regard for all living beings, whereas atheistic scientists who assume consciousness to be an emergent property of matter have no such philosophical grounding - and consequently have less regard for lower forms of life.
Philosophically, non-violence to animals is more complicated than that because Buddhism - a voidist philosophy - was a response to widespread abuse of religious injunctions concerning animal sacrifices (and it also tricked many atheists into worshiping an incarnation of Vishnu) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Hence, personalists tend to have a deep philosophical regard for all living beings, whereas atheistic scientists who assume consciousness to be an emergent property of matter have no such philosophical grounding - and consequently have less regard for lower forms of life.
|
As it is written,
atheistic scientists (who assume...matter) - restrictive relative clause
As the restrictive relative clause reduces the set of such scientists...reduction to null most likely...the sentence in an of itself amounts to little more than personalist propoganda.
The rest of the atheist attack is mostly humor...yes?
Rteacher...what's the point here?
Atheists can't love animals as much as others but enjoy a good Vishnu worshiping?
Cheers  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Their definition of love may be different. Atheists are of many different types - and most are relatively innocent. My own technical definition of atheist here is very narrow: one who doesn't accept the principles (relating to karma, yoga, transmigration/reincarnation of souls, etc.) of Bhagavad-gita as spoken by Krishna and at least theoretically accept Krishna as God.
Although the spirit-souls of animals can't be killed, if their bodies are slain before their (set by karma) time is up, they have to be reborn into the same species until their remaining number of breaths in that particular form are used up before they can transmigrate to the next highest species on their evolutionary journey back to the human form of life - with its chance of transcending the cycle of repeated birth and death.
In this world of illusion, things are often not what they appear to be (and transcendental knowledge is fully known/revealed only by the greatest scientist).
http://www.prabhupadavani.org/main/Bhagavad-gita/GT247.html
http://vedabase.net/bg/12/1/en |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
Hence, personalists tend to have a deep philosophical regard for all living beings, whereas atheistic scientists who assume consciousness to be an emergent property of matter have no such philosophical grounding - and consequently have less regard for lower forms of life.
|
As it is written,
atheistic scientists (who assume...matter) - restrictive relative clause
As the restrictive relative clause reduces the set of such scientists...reduction to null most likely...the sentence in an of itself amounts to little more than personalist propoganda.
The rest of the atheist attack is mostly humor...yes?
Rteacher...what's the point here?
Atheists can't love animals as much as others but enjoy a good Vishnu worshiping?
Cheers |
He's going easy on those atheist scientists. I still remember the time he accused me of being a demon. Who says things like that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't recall the exact context of my referring to you ("Fox") as a demon, but I think it probably was during the time I suspected that you were another poster ("mindmetoo") who had made some offensive posts. Again, demon in the Vedic sense refers to many types of people - actually most people in the material world - but the great majority of them are "innocent demons" who have somehow been misled into doing things that transgress universal laws of God (e.g., supporting unnecessary animal slaughter).
Moreover, in this cosmic age (aka Kali-yuga), it is understood that every person has both demonic (ungodly) and devotional (godly) tendencies, so practically all of us have been both "demons" and "devotees" at different times. Other than in the case of big demons (like Hitler or Stalin) I realize that it's not wise to label anyone a demon - certainly not "Fox" (and not even "Mindmetoo"...)
At different times, even I can appear to be either a devotee or a (disturbingly twisted) demon ...
http://www.singsnap.com/karaoke/r/bf10e2747
http://www.singsnap.com/karaoke/r/b8bad22c  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
big_fella1
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
PETA is one of the greatest scams ever pulled find a group who can't speak and raise money to protect them. Further blackmail companies that sell any animal product to give you cash and a say in the companies operations geeater than that of tge shareholders.
I'm being cynical, I'm sorry.
Let me make amends by introducing PETP People for the Ethical Treatment of Plants. Our activists will be protesting naked at your local bar or club to stop the senseless slaughter of barley, hops and malt and also to protect the poor cotton that is abused to stitch most clothing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A truly pragmatic approach that would be best for the environment would be to eat only vegetarian food - since we need to eat something - and not support slaughterhouses and factory farms.
A more spiritual approach was adopted by Saint Francis (don't call him a sissy)... http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080103024532AAUOHDH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
| A truly pragmatic approach ... would be to eat only vegetarian food |
That's not pragmatic. In fact, it's the outright opposite of pragmatism. A pragmatic approach would be moderating our meat consumption and raising animals under more humane conditions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PatrickGHBusan
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Location: Busan (1997-2008) Canada 2008 -
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
| A truly pragmatic approach ... would be to eat only vegetarian food |
That's not pragmatic. In fact, it's the outright opposite of pragmatism. A pragmatic approach would be moderating our meat consumption and raising animals under more humane conditions. |
Bingo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
