Re: Is there a purpose to our existense
- From: r norman <NotMyRealEmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 11:28:25 -0500
On 11 Jan 2006 14:35:24 GMT, mcv <mcvmcv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>The Apostropher Royal <apostropher_royal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Alex Mak wrote:
>>
>>> Inteligence, i believe is the ability to lean from ones mistakes,
>>
>> A goat who accidentally eats a thistle and gets a sore mouth will learn
>> not to eat a thistle again, but I wouldn't define a goat as
>> intelligent.
>
>I would. There are many ways in which a goat, or most other animals,
>may be considered intelligent. I don't expect to see one pondering
>the nature of the universe of something like that, though.
>
It is well established that "intelligence" is a slippery concept. One
type of mollusc (opisthobranch, like Aplysia) that ordinarily feeds
on other molluscs (nudibranchs, like Hermissenda) but takes one bite
of an unpalatable new species will then shun that species. That is
clear one-trial learning but we ordinarily do not think of sea slugs
as intelligent in the human way.
Even worse, the isolated midthoracic ganglion of an insect that is
still attached to a leg can "learn" to keep the leg elevated if the
legs gets a shock every time it is lowered onto the surface. That
system containing only a few thousand neurons, is capable of learning.
Is it intelligent?
Then there is the classic conditioning of gill withdrawal in Aplysia
that requires only three neurons. That, too, is a form of learning.
I doubt if anybody considered a set of three neurons to be
intelligent.
Learning, including learning from one's own mistakes, is a commonplace
thing in biology. If you want to get into something that is more
characteristic of humans, try learning from somebody else's mistakes
when that information is relayed only through a third person! There
are well known situations in animal behavior where a learned behavior
pattern is transmitted culturally from generation to generation. But
that always occurs by having the naive animal directly observe the
behavior. One animal learns from watching another, but I don't know
if there is any case of a non-human animal learning from the behavior
of a second only by hearing about it through the communication of a
third party. This third-party criterion is something I learned about
decades ago (directly, not through a third party) from an animal
behavior specialist from Rutgers, but I can't remember his name.
And, if you really want to get into something uniquely human, the best
reference is Genesis. The fruit that Adam and Eve ate and that caused
so many problems was not from the Tree of Knowledge, but specifically
the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Are there any examples of a
non-human animal learning about whether the motivation of a second
animal is "good" or "evil" only through the intervention of a third
animal?
.
- References:
- Is there a purpose to our existense
- From: Alex Mak
- Re: Is there a purpose to our existense
- From: Ye Old One
- Re: Is there a purpose to our existense
- From: Alex Mak
- Is there a purpose to our existense
- Prev by Date: Re: Why do atheists take themselves so seriously? And why won't they leave us normal people alone?
- Next by Date: Re: Local Creationist Letter to the Editor
- Previous by thread: Re: Is there a purpose to our existense
- Next by thread: Re: Is there a purpose to our existense
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
