What Is It Like to Be a Bee? | Hacker News Reader

What Is It Like to Be a Bee?

atlasobscura.com

76 pointsHooke39 comments

Open articleView on HN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlrsqGal64w

Half a bee, philosophically, Must, ipso facto, half not be. But half the bee has got to be. Vis a vis, its entity.

I never noticed those hairy ocelli in bee pictures.

Seems like they are for detecting wind direction so they can stay on course in windy conditions.

Google of “what is it like to be” returns curious results:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22What+Is+It+Like+to+Be%22+...

Anyone have suggestions for further notable research on the topic?

Did you miss "a bee" in your search query?

I'm not seeing Thomas Nagle's "what is it like to be a bat", that's an interesting philosopher's take on these type of questions.

There's a negative filter for bat in the query.

These are the types of articles I like to see on HN.

The article cites and links to a video of a bee learning to move a ball into a goal that's pretty cool!

It feels like a never- ending rave, with different phases of dancing.

I'm always amazed that this needs to be said, but yes, there are other creatures with consciousness who see from "first-person perspective". Do we imagine that only humans can do that, and every other creature, with their range of similar and not-so-similar brain structures are just automatons that don't have experiences, but instead just produce outputs for a given set of inputs? That's almost as arrogant as thinking that since other people differ in their anatomy and brain structure from you, you're probably the only person who is consciously experiencing life from first-person (everyone else is just a flesh robot).

If I weren't a militant solipsist, I would be offended by what you said about my assumptions!

Hey now! The reality that confines a singular, isolated perception can still incidentally offend its sole sentient entity without motive.

You’re being selfishly stoic, and that’s somewhat repugnant, even for a solipsist.

>> That's almost as arrogant as thinking that since other people differ in their anatomy and brain structure from you, you're probably the only person who is consciously experiencing life from first-person (everyone else is just a flesh robot).

Wow, so, because I can’t prove anything exists outside of my own mind, I’m completely ignorant for being a solipsist.

I guess I can make some blanket statement saying everyone who believes what you believe is arrogant and ignorant.

>Wow, so, because I can’t prove anything exists outside of my own mind, I’m completely ignorant for being a solipsist.

Can you prove that your mind exists?

Well now i think that you are being naive:

I believe that humans just produce outputs for a given set of inputs.

But that does not also mean that i don't believe in consciousness. Consciousness is just a part(one many parts) that sits between the input and output.

The article, and the parent comment seek to gain some understanding of consciousness by exploration of subjective perspectives - both our own and that of the bee's. Your statements merely assert that you view consciousness from the outside, 'objective' perspective. How does this contribute to the conversation? Are you saying that subjective perspectives on consciousness do not exist and/or are an illusion? Or that they are irrelevant (maybe b/c you believe free will does not exist)? Or that it's useless to study consciousness from a subjective perspective?

'humans just produce outputs for a given set of inputs' sounds like one of the axioms of the behaviorist school of psychology, which eliminated all concepts of internal states to concentrate solely on stimulus (inputs) and response (outputs). While it has proven useful for the treatment of some kinds of pathological behavior, it has fallen out of favor as a tool to study consciousness - not a big surprise, as the whole enterprise elides the concept of consciousness entirely.

    The article, and the parent comment seek to gain some understanding of consciousness by exploration of subjective perspectives - both our own and that of the bee's. Your statements merely assert that you view consciousness from the outside, 'objective' perspective. How does this contribute to the conversation?

Yes, you do have a good point.

I was mainly just expressing how i thought about the issue, maybe putting some light on other parts of the equation.

    Maybe b/c you believe free will does not exist?

For that you need to define free will. Essentially the free will question comes down to, do you believe in magic, yes or no.

I don't believe in magic and therefore i don't believe in that type of free will.

The only thing that determines how you will react to a certain input is all the pervious input you have had in your life and your genes(aka starting position).

    Or that it's useless to study consciousness from a subjective perspective?

No not useless.

Consciousness is not a total illusion, it is simply not what people seam to think what it is.

My Consciousness seam to think it is a human, but in reality it is a neural network located in a humans head. So one illusion is that consciousness seam to think it is something that it is definitely not.

Do I think it's likely that at least certain other animals have a subjective conscious experience? Yes.

But until we understand why certain processing involves that subjective experience, and thus why other brain processing (as far as we know) does not (for a lot of our own brain processing seems to not involve it), we don't have strong evidence as to what other creatures have a subjective conscious experience and which do not. Though it seems likely, we don't definitely know there are other animals that have a subjective experience.

But everyone, including me, is a flesh robot.

This reminds me of "What Is it Like to Be a Bat?" by Nagel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_it_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F

The question of what it's like to be someone or something else is much more immediate with all the youngsters who claim they feel like the opposite sex and have done so their whole lives, despite of course not having any frame of reference for those feelings. And based on those feelings alone we're told they are to be injected with life-altering chemicals and have life-altering surgeries.

> despite of course not having any frame of reference for those feelings

the question hinges on whether they need a frame of reference for those feelings. You seem to be implying that it's obvious that they do. Why?

Perhaps it is like the feeling that you're hungry, that it's some sort of innate reporting that doesn't require an external frame of reference. Or like the feeling that you're attracted to either males or females, or both. That seems to be just there, coming from inside.

Personally, I don't know the answer. I don't know if there's any relevant research, but on the face of it at least, it's not obvious that it should be one way or the other.

I don't have the feeling I am a man. I am a man by the definition we all(used to) work with. It's not a word encompassing a set of feelings or doings. If one wishes to use the word "man" for something else, question is: why the same word? If someone with a vagina and breasts says she is a man, I have to ask: how do you know? I don't know what the man next to me feels like or thinks. I could not possibly identify as his way of being. Let alone a biological woman.

And seems that no one really cares about the theoretical issues we, transphobic people, have in accepting such views. We're just that. And problem is if our daughters or sons will come one day saying they're transgender, they will have no arguments, but just hurt feelings and the requirement to accept them as they are, or believe to be. We, as parents, may do so out of love. But others will not. And we, as parents, will have to accept the high risk of suicide for a view that has no sane arguments behind.

> And problem is if our daughters or sons will come one day saying they're transgender, they will have no arguments, but just hurt feelings...

I'm not sure why you say hurt feelings, rather than just "feelings".

On a separate note, historically, the medical profession has been terrible at ignoring or dismissing real issues that people have faced because we didn't have an understanding of them at the time. There's a very strong positivist bent that, if we don't formally understand an issue then it doesn't exist. Which completely ignores the fact that our knowledge of the body and brain and all their complexities (and all the ways they can vary and go wrong and so forth) was and is quite incomplete.

The attitude that, if we don't have an objective theoretical account of some mental/physical then the right thing to do is basically discount its reality has led to so much needless suffering.

This of course is not itself any evidence that someone's claims about themselves is true, but it is something that should always be seriously taken into consideration.

> And we, as parents, will have to accept the high risk of suicide for a view that has no sane arguments behind.

This is a risk of depression as well, and refusing to accept that someone is depressed does not make them any less likely to commit suicide.

> refusing to accept that someone is depressed

The depression is not what's being contested. The claim that they belong to the opposite sex just because they say so is what's being contested.

Hacker News is supposed to be non-political.

What you describe has a medical term, it's called gender dysphoria and is widely studied within the medical community.

I'm very familiar with gender dysphoria research, and I'm also familiar with the endless stream of vitriol (but no actual scientific refutation as far as I have seen) against people like Blanchard, Bailey, Lawrence et al. as soon as they say something that doesn't fit the political objectives of the activists.

My interest isn't with the politics, it's with the science, which does seem like it's well within the scope of Hacker News.

it's with the science, which does seem like it's well within the scope of Hacker News.

Maybe you should write a blog post about that and post that to HN and see how it does instead of hijacking completely unrelated threads with deliberately incendiary comments. You did that and it's lame as is trying to hide behind 'science' or the scope oh HN.

I'd actually encourage yipopov to do that, and I hope it doesn't get flagged and some interesting discussion arises from it... Sam Altman very recently posted about being more comfortable discussing controversial ideas such as this one!

http://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove

What kind of Rorschach test is it that an article about bees and philosophy of mind that does not even mention gender at all triggers someone to make an anti-trans comment? In which it's asserted that someone's feelings about their own life are wrong and their lived experience is incorrect.

Maybe we could try to imagine what it's like to be a different human first before moving on to bees.

> are to be

Have asked to be, usually repeatedly and in the face of a great deal of opposition.

It's philosophically related. Very much related and of much more interest these days. Specially since transgender people have such high risk of mental illness and suicide, they and close ones need to be made aware and informed about theoretical issues regarding their beliefs. If they are served only the one-sided ideological views so not to hurt them emotionally, they are not really protected, but only encouraged to risk their lives in the hope the world will change by force and not by argument and debate.

Do you think that any trans person can reach adulthood or even puberty without being aware of the "theoretical issues" that the rest of the world thinks about the issue? Being a minority as they are?

Do you really think they are the ones trying to change the world by force, rather than the other way round? Traditionally quite a lot of force, including murder, has been levelled against trans people.

And what does any of this have to do with bees?

In addition to what others have said in response and further picking apart this silliness: Your comment also appears to suggest that a life of depression and potential suicide is preferable to the medically accepted palliative treatment that has shown itself to be quite life-altering indeed, at least enough to prevent this outcome.

> Your comment also appears to suggest that a life of depression and potential suicide is preferable to the medically accepted palliative treatment that has shown itself to be quite life-altering indeed,

That only follows if that outcome is inevitable and that highly invasive treatment is the only solution. For example I have a hard time seeing it as particularly necessary for patients with autogynephilia, which seems to be the largest group among men.

> at least enough to prevent this outcome.

Hardly enough, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

Maybe there is some comorbidity, which if treated, the gender dysphoria could be resolved as well without invasive treatment.

Taking an HN thread into off-topic flamewar hell like this amounts to trolling. We ban accounts that do this. Please don't do it again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: your account history consists largely of uncivil and/or unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments. Would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart? We're looking for thoughtful conversation, not snark, putdowns, or intellectual face-smacks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com