Jonathan, Davids, Denis and all:
I'd say it doesn't muddle it up too much at all. The child simply
learned to get around according to what was being taught in the monkey's
society. He just learned a different kind of locomotion. The poor kid
has the wrong kind for his physiology and I wouldn't be suprized if he
would have eventually discovered the upright position. (Chimps think its
kinky)
I think it was Marco in the other forum. Someone somplained that bees
shouldn't be thought of as social creatures simply becasue they nest in
groups. I think that's right. Bees are exceptional creatures, but I
don't think they "learn" their social skills, they just do it. Isn't
that the difference between biology and society? If it doesn't have to
be taught, if it comes automatically and naturally without any kind of
instruction or demonstration, then it is just a biological funtion. But
if it has to be taught, like walking and talking, then it is social.
We're so close to the other primates that comparisons are fair. And it
really easy to see that they have some kind of society. We can recognize
our selves in them. But ants and bees? I don't think its useful or
correct to say they participate in the MOQ social level in any
recognizable way.
And forgive me for mixing this in with the Debate Denis and I have Been
engaged in, but this issue is related part of our conversation. Denis
had been making the case that most conversations are intellectual based
on the idea that only the intellectual level can convey information and
information is exchanged in most conversations, however trivial they may
seem. My counter point was, "But, the social level is loaded with
valuable information." And now it seems that the social level is nothing
but information. Learned behavior is THEE difference between a
biological organism and a social animal.
Denis, maybe you don't agree. But you can see the logic of it, eh?
DMB
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan B. Marder [SMTP:marder@agri.huji.ac.il]
> Sent: Thursday, October 07, 1999 11:29 AM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: MD WALKING IS A SOCIAL SKILL
>
> JONATHAN LEAVES THE INTELLECTUAL vs. SOCIAL DEBATE
> AND MUDDIES SOCIAL vs. BIOLOGICAL
>
> Hi all,
>
> We all know what the biological level includes, right?
> Well what about this:
> Last night the BBC World Service reported the case of a human boy
> found
> living among monkeys in Uganda - a real-life Tarzan. He was apparently
> abandoned as a toddler and only found again 2 years later.
> Not surprisingly, the child couldn't talk, but what really struck me
> was
> that the child couldn't WALK either. This wasn't a physical problem,
> since he quickly learned to walk after his rescue. It suggests to me
> that the SOCIAL level has something to do with even the very basic
> "biological" function of walking. and the whole distinction between
> social and biological is blurred.
>
> Comments?
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
> MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST