Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Instinctual Behavior Vs Intelligent Decisions
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 1 of 83 (643660)
12-01-2011 3:56 PM


Please read Message 4 before posting to this thread. It contains a clarification of the topic. --Admin
Hi all.
Hopefully this question isn't a big rehash of something which has already been discussed.
My question seems simple: How do we tell the difference between behavior which is the result of inherited, evolved processes and behavior that is the result of intelligent decision making?
This question arises because I am currently reading _Climbing Mount Improbable_ by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins starts early in the book with the example of spider webs (and their probable 'evolution') demonstrating complex evolved behavior and the "appearance" of design in what is actually a naturally evolved system. He refers to such things as "designoid" (such as an organism which may appear deliberately designed but which is actually the result of random mutation/genetic change and nonrandom selection).
What sort of test might we apply to something in order to decide whether a behavior is based on a conscious decision making process and not a behavioral compulsion driven through evolution? Some examples I think of are pack hunting behaviors (such as wolves, or chimps hunting monkeys) that might look like 'tactics' and which could appear to be the result of complex communication and spacial reasoning; however, I might be guilty of applying anthropomorphism to the critters. They might not have a "choice" in how they go about their hunt, any more than the spider has a choice in the design of its web or the beaver in the construction of its dam.
Just like a spider might be genetically compelled to go through the physical motions of building a web, might not an ancient hominid be compelled to knap a hand axe, without any real conscious understanding of what it is doing?
Might the ability to learn new techniques and pass those techniques on to another generation via communication and learning be such a test? For example, a human learning a better construction technique for putting together a shelter, through observation and trial, and then passing that new technique on to his or her offspring, who do the same?
Put it this way. Imagine some hypothetical island off the northern coasts of Europe, where an isolated population of Neanderthals is discovered. What behavioral patterns / observable evidence might we look for to determine whether they are self-aware, thinking creatures using intelligent decision making processes (I hate to use the phrase "critical thinking" but that might be best) assuming that direct communication with them is impossible? Or maybe substitute "aliens on a far away planet" for Neanderthals. I suppose the tests might be the same.
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter. I'm very interested in this question, though it may be pretty murky.
Edited by Admin, : Add moderator note at top.
Edited by Admin, : Change title, was "Evolved Behavior Vs Intelligent Decisions".

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Wollysaurus, posted 12-03-2011 1:24 AM Wollysaurus has not replied
 Message 10 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2011 11:05 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 2 of 83 (643661)
12-03-2011 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wollysaurus
12-01-2011 3:56 PM


Anybody?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wollysaurus, posted 12-01-2011 3:56 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 12-03-2011 8:17 AM Wollysaurus has replied

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 4 of 83 (643663)
12-03-2011 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
12-03-2011 8:17 AM


I think we're all hoping some other moderator will tackle this one because it was a little difficult to tell where you were going. My own reaction was that the Dawkins paragraph near the beginning gives the sense that the thread would be about evolution versus design, so I'd remove that paragraph since it's purpose is to clarify but it doesn't seem to do that.
I think you may really be asking how we tell the difference between instinctual and conscious behavior. Whether instinctual behaviors are evolved did not seem part of the topic. If so then I think the proposal needs a rewrite.
Hi there.
The intent is not "evolution versus design", at least in terms of the organisms or their behaviors. For the purposes of this thread, I accept evolution. I am not asking whether or not a sky god taught the spider how to make its web. My question is specifically in regards to how we can determine whether what an organism does (its actions, whether we are talking about building a spiderweb or a sky scraper) are the product of unconsciously directed physical actions compelled by evolutionary processes (in my opinion building a spiderweb or beaver dam would fall into this category) or the result of a deliberate, conscious decision making process (such as building a sky scraper).
The spider does not sit back and think to itself "hmmm, the tensile strength of this strand isn't quite right" or "this spoke isn't in the right place, I'll just redo it tomorrow." But how do I "know" the spider is not, at some cognitive level, planning each part of the web and is instead simply acting out physically actions which are programmed at a genetic level?
On the flip side, how could I prove that someone planning a twenty story skyscraper is doing so on a conscious level, utilizing a higher intelligence?
And where do we draw the line? Given some of the spectacularly complex behaviors we observe in nature, whether in terms of construction of physical structures or even social behaviors, how can we tell when something is the result of an intelligence using reason and higher functions, versus an organism just following a genetic program?
Edited by Wollysaurus, : Clarity
Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 12-03-2011 8:17 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 12-10-2011 10:44 AM Wollysaurus has not replied
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 12-10-2011 11:55 AM Wollysaurus has replied
 Message 12 by DWIII, posted 12-11-2011 8:44 AM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Wollysaurus
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 52
From: US
Joined: 08-25-2011


Message 8 of 83 (643704)
12-10-2011 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by nwr
12-10-2011 11:55 AM


Thanks for the replies.
Along crashfrogs reasoning, say every spider of a certain species in a genetic "island" builds its web in the same way, couldn't that be evidence that the spider is following a "program" that doesn't contain a conscious component?
If the spider hatches, has no exposure to other spiders building webs, and then builds a web exactly conforming to other webs in a given sample group of spidrs of the same species, wouldn't this be strong evidence of genetic rather than consciously driven behavior?
I guess this is an extremely broad topic that could go in all sorts of directions, especially when it comes ro human behavior.
Edited by Wollysaurus, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 12-10-2011 11:55 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 12-10-2011 6:54 PM Wollysaurus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024