Bees have an internal sense of time (2022)
greenrosechemistry.com
greenrosechemistry.com
At least, that's what I thought, but this criticism of the methodology [0] doesn't make it look conclusive, and presumably it would have been replicated if it was any good.
[0] https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29...
That seems like a much simpler experiment than the previous ones!
The molecular basis of circadian rhythm has been studied in fruit flies. Every cell has a chemical clock which adjusts for a range of temperatures. They found that calorie restriction and cold temperature extends the life span of fruit flies. But if you alter the DNA of their circadian clock those lifespan increases do not happen.
I still don't feel like I have a good answer
How much are you impacted by the sounds from our boats?
Which areas do you no longer visit due to the absence of plankton?
Tell us about the harms that we do to the oceans - we may know some, but we'd like to know if there are any more.
How are you impacted by our plastic pollution?
Teach us to speak to Orcas and Dolphins
How we learned that bees can tell time (2021) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36177030 - June 2023 (12 comments)
Bees are pretty awesome.
Here's a cool Cosmos episode, that discusses them:
Anyway, no abstract musing about time is complete without a word from Dōgen: "You may suppose that time is only passing away, and not understand that time never arrives."
If time itself is change, then we are directly observing it. If time is something else, and it causes change, then we can’t observe it but can observe the effects. We’ll probably perceive it similarly either way.
From all indications, time is an emergent property of causality. And we directly perceive causality.
Feinman writes somewhere about training himself to accurately perceive a minute, with some success.
I'm curious whether there are any human studies about this.
And on high doses of certain psychedelics you can experience what it’s like to lose that.
You bring up people knowing how much time passed while they slept but I don’t think that’s true. Without cues like lighting and restfulness I don’t think we do know.
Does a wave in a pond "perceive" time?
Does my alarm clock "perceive" time?
I think a less hyperbolic statement is that bees can measure time. perception has the connotation of conscious awareness.
>ar·bi·trar·y, adjective based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
I don't think this threshold is arbitrary. I think it is part of a set of word definitions that and are logically compatible, coherent, and useful.
Similarly, I dont think it arbitrary to say the bee is a living organism, but the alarm clock is not.
Would you argue that the any definition of "living" is similarly arbitrary?
An alarm clock is not self aware, because it doesn't model the world, and select between actions.
Similarly, a bee, (which I believe to act on pre-programed instinct, not in the moment reason), is not self aware. This is because it selects between actions, but can not logically model the world.
A dog, on the other hand, can build logical models of the world, and then take actions based on that. It can that begging from one person results in treats, while begging from another results in discipline. It can update this logic and behavior based on new information.
I don't think a hive is self aware for the same reasons as the bee. It acts conditionally but does not create new logic models of the world.
As for the cells, I think they closer to complex alarm clocks than the bees, and are not self aware for the same reason.
I think my logic is consistent.
We get a less-predictive model for some questions and a more-predictive one for others. Sort of like how asking whether we should model humans as collections of cells, individuals or societies is freshman dorm stuff until we pair it with an actual question.
I think you are shortchanging bees a bit, based on your description of a dog building a logical model of the world, I would say bees definitely qualify.
>A dog, on the other hand, can build logical models of the world, and then take actions based on that. It can that begging from one person results in treats, while begging from another results in discipline. It can update this logic and behavior based on new information.
Bees are capable of a lot of interesting and complex behavior, from learning to communication with other bees.[1] It's been theorized that they can play around just for fun, which is hard to reconcile with them behaving on entirely pre-programmed instincts.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_learning_and_communication [2] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/bees-can-...
Why I cared enough to dig into that: every word/category is arbitrary; words and word-logic only help us insofar as they tell us useful things about reality.
haha, having useful meanings is the exact thing that makes word categories non-arbitrary.
Having different categories and words for food and poison is useful. The distinction is not arbitrary.
Similarly, the concept and definition of living/inanimate is not arbitrary. It defiantly tells us something useful.
You could say the exact definition of "living" isn't clear, but that doesn't mean every definition is equally good. For example, “things that are purple“, would be a pretty crappy definition of "living". It's not random or arbitrary. Thought and logic went into crafting the definition.
A very hot pepper has features of both food and poison. Most things are not perfect binaries, and if you put a dividing line on a spectrum, the placement of that dividing line must be arbitrary. Obviously people try to come up with good definitions of things, but that still doesn’t mean it’s a productive use of anyone’s time/effort deciding which side of an arbitrary divide a thing falls into.
> It's not random or arbitrary.
No one said arbitrary == random! Arbitrary in this discussion is meaning “a person chose it”. And it is a useful concept to me here in this context because it distinguishes things a person is deciding from things that are just real in-and-of-themselves out here in spacetime.
Opposed to what what exactly? Nothing that can be perceived, processed, or communicated by humans fails this test. In that case, all language, logic, and thought is arbitrary. 2+2=4 is arbitrary, because someone chose definitions which fit within a logical construct of assumptions, and those rules too were selected by humans.
Something is not arbitrary simply because alternatives may exist. Alternatives can be more or less useful, and useful for different purposes.
Selection of a definition fit for purpose, is therefore not arbitrary, specifically Because it comes with implications and consequences. It is a distinction with a difference
>A very hot pepper has features of both food and poison. Most things are not perfect binaries, and if you put a dividing line on a spectrum, the placement of that dividing line must be arbitrary. Obviously people try to come up with good definitions of things, but that still doesn’t mean it’s a productive use of anyone’s time/effort deciding which side of an arbitrary divide a thing falls into.
I truly dont understand your example. Is it not a productive use of time to know if a hot pepper is food or poison, despite being on a spectrum? It seems to prove the opposite. Most things are not perfect binaries, but society doesn't throw up our hands and say it isn't productive to delineate food from poison. A definition of poison that excludes hot peppers is clearly more useful for nearly everyone, nearly all the time.
I go by the typical dictionary definitions or arbitrary:
a: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will
b: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something
A definition that is thoughtfully constructed to fit within the greater body of human knowledge, logic, and utility is not random, capricious, or motivated by personal preference or convenience.
If someone is allergic to peanuts, they could definitely say it's poison. Categories aren't objective.
If your perspective is so great that everything is arbitrary simply because it is the product of the human mind, then the term is meaningless. why bother even using it.
Similarly, if someone treats every definitions as fluid, and makes no attempt seek logical or objective consistency, I don't see the point in conversing with them.
I will just assume the true meaning of everything you said is enthusiastic agreement. If you disagree, I can waive your point away as the arbitrary and pointless ravings of a human mind.
You're getting into metaphysics, which is in general not useful. I mean, Nietzsche's essay on words being lies is entertaining and all, but ultimately just something to contemplate when stoned.