|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What you see with your own eyes vs what scientists claim | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Learning requires experience. Drugs can enable you to envisage new solutions of which you have no experience. The crows were not taking drugs. You're saying their behavior was not necessarily either learned or evolved. By what other mechanism could they exhibit this behavior? All you are doing is bitching about the proposed ones, but you haven't provided anything better. What is the other option besides learned or evolved!?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Any contamination/mutation of food source could cause enforced ingestion of foreign substances.
(I recall a report about birds getting drunk on rotting fruit. It said the sugar was turning to alcohol).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Drugs don't actually produce the solutions though. The solutions are the results of a reasoning process. Reasoning how to do something by constructing an internal model is a part of learning. Increasing the capacity to learn doesn't change that it is a learned behaviour. Cleverly worded. But that won't help you. Are you saying learned behaviour requires reasoning? Or how did you come to the conclusion that the solutions are the result of reasoning?
Well the paper we looking at initially was examining a "If loss varied with height" scenario. What you describe is for "loss does not vary with height" scenario. Different scenarios with different outcomes. Figure 5. In the model paper shows two possible cases predicted for energy maximisation. 'Loss probability varies with height' cases can lie anywhere in between, depending on the loss probability as a function of height.
I seem to remember that you recognised that "The number of drops required to break the nut was missing from their test as an independent variable. But it is a critical variable in measuring energy expended.". Do you still think that their test is flawed having viewed the model? Yes, I think their argument is flawed. The model can yield increasing or decreasing height for the varying probability case. The model paper just happens to pick a probability function that demonstrates a marked difference with the fixed probability case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Cleverly worded. But that won't help you. Are you saying learned behaviour requires reasoning? Or how did you come to the conclusion that the solutions are the result of reasoning? Reasoning can be seen for our purposes as drawing upon experience, and trying to create a coherent narrative or model. If reasoning does not draw upon experience (pure rationalism that is), then it is very unlikely to happen upon a way to an optimum chess strategy without any experience of chess or games or other strategies etc. Gaining new knowledge due to past experiences is learning. Acting on that new knowledge would surely then be classed as learned behaviour. I did not come to the conclusion that the solutions are the result of reasoning - I discussed both options in my post.
Figure 5. In the model paper shows two possible cases predicted for energy maximisation. 'Loss probability varies with height' cases can lie anywhere in between, depending on the loss probability as a function of height. Their model predicted that at no loss the optimum height was at 16. If loss probability varied with height it was lower than this height. Are you thinking that loss probability might possibly go down as height increases? That scenario is (as you have already observed) not part of their model. We discussed why that is reasonable already, and indeed is observed behaviour in the birds.
The model can yield increasing or decreasing height for the varying probability case. The model paper just happens to pick a probability function that demonstrates a marked difference with the fixed probability case. Yes, they used the evidence of their eyes which showed them that the probability of losing something increases the longer you leave it unprotected. Have you a superior probability function other than the one used? If we use it, do you think it will successfully predict the behaviour of crows?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Any contamination/mutation of food source could cause enforced ingestion of foreign substances. (I recall a report about birds getting drunk on rotting fruit. It said the sugar was turning to alcohol).
Do you honestly think that that is a plausible mechanism? That is, that there is some foreign substance in the nuts that makes the crows find the optimum drop height. I'll grant you that it is not impossible, and I did ask, so thanks. But, seriouly, do you think that is in any way plausible? Or do you like it only because it is not-learned and not-evolved? You know, because you're biased against those being the only options... Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5899 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
(I recall a report about birds getting drunk on rotting fruit. It said the sugar was turning to alcohol). Heh. I've seen that with Artibeus spp. fruit bats and fermenting mangoes in Central America. I'm not sure this behavior fits into your argument, though. The bats normally eat mangoes. These particular mangoes were rotting (and thus fermenting). The bats got drunk on the fermented mangoes. In other words, this was normal behavior for the bats, but the consequences of this normal behavior were abnormal. I doubt they actually learned anything. In fact, if the behavior were to be repeated deliberately, you could make a good case that it would be negatively impacted by natural selection (so it couldn't become normative) due to highly increased vulnerability to predation. In the Artibeus example, if I hadn't restrained my dog, the abnormal consequences of the behavior would have negatively impacted the individual bats' survival .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
We used to see this with Cedar Waxwings eating overripe berries from our Pyracantha; they would get so drunk they could not fly off and the local cats feasted.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Thanks for sharing that. It seems the camera operator had a nip or two as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Reasoning can be seen for our purposes as drawing upon experience, and trying to create a coherent narrative or model. Realization of coherence can be chemically induced (or inhibited), involuntarily, without "reasoning".
If reasoning does not draw upon experience (pure rationalism that is), then it is very unlikely to happen upon a way to an optimum chess strategy without any experience of chess or games or other strategies etc. What is the relevance of that, unless you are suggesting that forming additional, "purely rational" strategies are impossible once you have experience of chess? (I note you dumped poker for this point. . Good man!)
That scenario is (as you have already observed) not part of their model. We discussed why that is reasonable already, and indeed is observed behaviour in the birds. It is part of their model. See Figure 5 as described in Message 123. I think you may have interpreted it incorrectly. They discounted the increasing option in their test with no reason given.
Yes, they used the evidence of their eyes which showed them that the probability of losing something increases the longer you leave it unprotected. Have you a superior probability function other than the one used? If we use it, do you think it will successfully predict the behaviour of crows? You seem to be confusing the calibration test for the loss index with the loss vs height estimate from the model. The former is fairly intuitive. The latter is given in Figure 5, as I explained above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
Do you honestly think that that is a plausible mechanism? That is, that there is some foreign substance in the nuts that makes the crows find the optimum drop height. It is easier and quicker for me to answer straight questions which don't have your own spin tagged on the end. Otherwise we spend too much time unravelling the mess and cluttering up the thread. Rephrase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sinequanon Member (Idle past 2891 days) Posts: 331 Joined: |
If you followed the thread I was answering a specific question on how a chemical could be administered to a whole colony of creatures. For that answer, the precise chemical was not important, just showing that it is possible.
What I see with my own eyes tells me that learned and evolved behaviours are NOT the only options for behaviour. Therefore, I reject the conclusion of the paper that they have demonstrated that the crows learned or evolved the said behaviour.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2669 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
You've been asked before and have yet to answer, but here goes nothing.
What I see with my own eyes tells me that learned and evolved behaviours are NOT the only options for behaviour. What are the other options?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
me writes: You're saying their behavior was not necessarily either learned or evolved. By what other mechanism could they exhibit this behavior? Any contamination/mutation of food source could cause enforced ingestion of foreign substances. Do you honestly think that that is a plausible mechanism? That is, that there is some foreign substance in the nuts that makes the crows find the optimum drop height. The behavior in question is finding the optimum drop height. The scientist concluded that the behavior was learned or evolved. You claim that it could be something other than learned or evolved. When pressed for what it could be, you claim it could be from ingestion of foreign substance. My question now is: Do you honestly think that the crow's behavior of finding the optimum drop height could be comming from the ingestion of foreign substances?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What I see with my own eyes tells me that learned and evolved behaviours are NOT the only options for behaviour. Bullshit. You haven't seen anything with your own eyes that suggests that. If you did, you would have shared it by now.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024