Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What you see with your own eyes vs what scientists claim
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 165 (447899)
01-11-2008 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 9:42 AM


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!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 9:42 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 122 of 165 (447906)
01-11-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2008 11:11 AM


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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 11:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 1:07 PM sinequanon has replied
 Message 126 by Quetzal, posted 01-11-2008 1:12 PM sinequanon has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 123 of 165 (447915)
01-11-2008 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Modulous
01-11-2008 10:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2008 10:55 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2008 1:03 PM sinequanon has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 124 of 165 (447934)
01-11-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 12:10 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 12:10 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 2:26 PM Modulous has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 165 (447937)
01-11-2008 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 11:39 AM


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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 11:39 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 2:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 126 of 165 (447943)
01-11-2008 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 11:39 AM


(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 .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 11:39 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 1:19 PM Quetzal has not replied
 Message 132 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 2:36 PM Quetzal has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 127 of 165 (447947)
01-11-2008 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Quetzal
01-11-2008 1:12 PM


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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Quetzal, posted 01-11-2008 1:12 PM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 1:29 PM jar has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 165 (447952)
01-11-2008 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by jar
01-11-2008 1:19 PM


Drunk Squirrel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by jar, posted 01-11-2008 1:19 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-11-2008 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 129 of 165 (447962)
01-11-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2008 1:29 PM


Re: Drunk Squirrel
Thanks for sharing that. It seems the camera operator had a nip or two as well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 1:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 130 of 165 (447967)
01-11-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Modulous
01-11-2008 1:03 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2008 1:03 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 01-11-2008 5:54 PM sinequanon has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 131 of 165 (447969)
01-11-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by New Cat's Eye
01-11-2008 1:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 2:57 PM sinequanon has replied

sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 132 of 165 (447973)
01-11-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Quetzal
01-11-2008 1:12 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Quetzal, posted 01-11-2008 1:12 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by molbiogirl, posted 01-11-2008 2:47 PM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 135 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2008 2:59 PM sinequanon has not replied
 Message 146 by Quetzal, posted 01-11-2008 7:29 PM sinequanon has not replied

molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 133 of 165 (447975)
01-11-2008 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 2:36 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 2:36 PM sinequanon has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 165 (447980)
01-11-2008 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 2:31 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 2:31 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 3:18 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 165 (447981)
01-11-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by sinequanon
01-11-2008 2:36 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by sinequanon, posted 01-11-2008 2:36 PM sinequanon 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