|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Genuine Puzzles In Biology? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Often it is somewhat more than that. Often you must create the options in your mind, work out the details and then test them.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
By way of suggesting a practical value of imagination, you seem to be describing a conversation with yourself in which you choose from two or more options. That seems to suggest the exercise of free will. Unless this internal conversation is just an illusion without effect on the outcome. But if so, where is the practical value? No, hold on. It may be true that given any particular state of my brain, the result of exercising my imagination will be inevitable; and certain philosophers would conclude from this (wrongly, in my view, since I am a compatibilist) that I have no free will and have not really made a choice. But even if we grant all this, it does not follow that the non-choice I don't-really-make as a result of exercising the faculty of imagination is the same as the non-choice I'd have not-really-made if I lacked this faculty: because to possess and use that faculty is part of the brain-state which determines my actions. (By analogy, if I know that bleach is poisonous, it may be the case that I cannot choose to drink it; and a philosopher might tell me that I am suffering from a mere illusion of choosing not to drink bleach. But it does not follow that this knowledge is completely useless to me, because if I lacked that knowledge and thought instead that bleach was a tasty and refreshing beverage, then I might drink it. The knowledge is useful and not superfluous precisely because my actions are determined --- and that knowledge is one of the things that determines my actions.) And so, so long as I make superior non-choices with an imagination than without one, which I think is beyond doubt, then it is biologically advantageous to possess the faculty.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
And so, so long as I make superior non-choices with an imagination than without one, which I think is beyond doubt, then it is biologically advantageous to possess the faculty.
Well put. I see your point and agree. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
And so, so long as I make superior non-choices with an imagination than without one, which I think is beyond doubt, then it is biologically advantageous to possess the faculty.
Well put. I see your point and agree. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 885 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
The point is, she knew that she had solved the puzzle before she actually got the bananas, because she was capable of thinking: if I do this, then bananas will ensue. This is not exactly what I was thinking of when I was refering to imagination, however, I will conceed that it may not be a uniquely human trait. I could even see how this trait could develop: if a memory can be stored in the brain as an image then recalling it at a later time when the original image was not present would technically be using imagination. Then, using the higher analytical powers of our more advanced brains, we could manipulate, combine and control those images so as to create new images. Perhaps the puzzle is how those images are even stored in our brains. However, I still see imagination as used in the creative process as being a genuine puzzle. How do we imagine things we have never seen? How do we create art that stirs emotions? Why are some people extremely imaginative and others can't paint a room in two complimentary colors?
Well, it's useful. In order to be able to plan ahead, we have to be able to say to ourselves: "What would happen if I do such-and-such a thing?" Maybe I am thinking about this the wrong way and making it more complicated than it is, but I see imagination as much more than just reasoning. Computers use reasoning and logic, but not imagination. Computers can only use the data that has been input into them. When we use imagination, we not only use the data that has been input, but make up our own data. Imagination comes from deeper within us. It comes from our dreams, our feelings, our experiences and from other places unknown. At least that's how I see it and why I say it is a genuine puzzle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Not too long ago I was channel hopping and came across a documentary on crows.
One segment revolved around problem solving and how quickly the crows could figure out a solution when presented with a new situation. The answer was nearly immediately. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not too long ago I was channel hopping and came across a documentary on crows. Was that the one where they were dropping nuts on the street and waiting for cars to drive over and break them? And they even figured out to wait for the red lights to run out there and pick them up? That was schweet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
May have been, I've seen that one as well. In this segment though they were testing to see if the crows could work out tool related problems, using multiple tools in sequence to get food.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
A study has shown that crows actually do not use autombiles as nutcrackers.
Nevertheless, this anecdote points to another set of Genuine Puzzles in Biology: animal cognition and consciousness. Are animals conscious? What emotions do they feel? Do they have a theory of mind? Many interesting questions. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given. Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Research has shown that crows actually do not use autombiles as nutcrackers: How'd they show that? Video shows that they do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NenEdSuL7QU Dude, crows are smart. Like way smart. Check out this one make a hook: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03ykewnc0oE Tool use? So now what?
Nevertheless, this anecdote points to another set of Genuine Puzzles in Biology: animal cognition and consciousness. I'd wager its less puzzling than you think...
Are animals conscious? Well, they're not unconscious (unless they're sleeping). A better word for what I think you're talking about would be sentient, no?
What emotions do they feel? How about another anecdote: When I was a kid, my friend's mom brought home their little white curly dog after it had just gotten totally shaved for the summer. I sware, that dog was embarrassed. I had never seen it hide and whine under the couch like, ever. Eventually it would come out, and then we'd point and laugh at it (it really was incredibly funny looking), and then it'd run and hide and whine some more. Although, you could argue that it was just following instincts and not really feeling an emotion and that we were just anthropomorphizing it. So whatever.
Do they have a theory of mind? Animals? Only humans have theories.
Many interesting questions. Yes, but I think the science of animal cognition has probably gotten further than you're aware, what with the asking if they're conscious or not, so you should look into it if you find it interesting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
shadow71 writes:
It doesn't. Try the following:
If this link doesn't work, ... No webpage found at provided URL: http://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/bionb221/WIM/resources/Cristol%20et%20al%20(1997)%20-%20Crows%20do%20not%20use%20automobiles%20as%20nutcrackers%20-%20Putting%20an%20anecdote%20to%20the%20test.pdf What I used there was [url]the_link_in_full[/url] which usually works better for complex urls. Even better is to use [url=the_link_in_full]short name[/url] which normally works without blowing the margins. Edited by nwr, : typo Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Thanks for the tip on links, nwr.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are animals conscious? What emotions do they feel? Do they have a theory of mind? These are all excellent questions which I shall answer the moment I figure out how to read the mind of a crow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: How'd they show that? Video shows that they do: While we can't rule out the possibility that the particular crow in the video learned to use cars as nutcrackers, anecdotal evidence can be misleading. In the study, reasearchers did 231 paired observations of crows with and without cars approaching. The crows were no more likely to drop walnuts on the road if cars were approaching than if cars were not approaching.
Dude, crows are smart. Like way smart. Check out this one make a hook: Yes, tool use in crows is well documented.
Well, they're not unconscious (unless they're sleeping). A better word for what I think you're talking about would be sentient, no? Definitions are part of the problem. Researchers in this field often have different definitions of what they mean by consciousness. We don't even understand consciousness in humans, so it's probably not possible at this stage to understand it in animals. Even sentience is a problem. I can make a good case that mammals are sentient. But what about fish? Or crustaceans? There are serious researchers who claim all of these animals can feel pain. These claims seem plausible, but I don't see the objective tests.
When I was a kid, my friend's mom brought home their little white curly dog after it had just gotten totally shaved for the summer. I sware, that dog was embarrassed. I had never seen it hide and whine under the couch like, ever. Eventually it would come out, and then we'd point and laugh at it (it really was incredibly funny looking), and then it'd run and hide and whine some more. Maybe your friend's dog was embarassed; or maybe it was reacting to your behavior. For example, many dog owners believe their dogs display a guilty look after misbehaving. But a study shows that the so-called "guilty look" is a reaction to the behavior of the owner when the owner believes the dog has misbehaved.
Animals? Only humans have theories. "Theory of mind" refers to the ability to recognize that individuals other than oneself have beliefs and desires. Humans have this ability. Some researchers claim that some other species have this ability, too. But the interpretation of this research is ambiguous, since the observed behaviors may have other explanations, such as prior trial-and-error learning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stephen Push Member (Idle past 4887 days) Posts: 140 From: Virginia, USA Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes: These are all excellent questions which I shall answer the moment I figure out how to read the mind of a crow. What about Gallup's mirror test? Don't you think that demonstrates self-awareness in chimpanzees, dolphins, and the other species that have passed the test? Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024