On bees, ants and social patterns, it could be argued that just as the mind
is the function of our biological brain "social" behaviour is the
(biological) function of a bee or ant society.
Anders
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Poisson [mailto:Denis.Poisson@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: den 8 oktober 1999 16:00
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD WALKING IS A SOCIAL SKILL
Hi, David(s) and Jonathan,
This discussion about walking being or not a biological function is
interesting, because it clearly points out the mecanisms by which a
level becomes independent of its parent. The tarzan-child Jonathan
refers to was able to learn two modes of locomotion, his biological
make-up was dynamic enough to allow for both informations. Ducklings on
the other hand never have to learn anything because as soon as they're
hatched, they know how to walk. It's ingrained in their DNA.
It's when the support for behaviour allows for dynamic change that a new
level (the social one) can emerge. I read somewhere that the relative
impotency of newborn human babes was in fact an asset because they are a
kind of 'virgin territory' for social and intellectual patterning. It
allows for a wide variety of things to be taught to them, while animals
who are born with a lot of instinctive knowledge "have their cup full",
so to speak. It's too deeply ingrained to be challenged by new dynamic
concepts.
I have to agree with David B. on the subject of ants and bees, their
'society' is instinctive, and therefore mostly biological. Still, they
can adapt and even change some of their behaviour (ants are best for
this, bees aren't). I gave an example some time ago where red ants had
captured a technology (storage ants) from another species of ants. That
struck me as very strange because if they could imitate another
behaviour and transmit it across such a short span of generations, then
it meant that there was another mean of transmission than just the DNA.
So maybe we have to be careful about which 'social insects' are only
biological units and which one exhibit a proto-social behaviour.
What is interesting is that it shows that an identical behaviour can be
transmitted on the social or the biological level. The causes are
different but the result is the same. Or perhaps it's a mix of the two ?
I sometime feel that the discrete nature of the levels starts to blur a
little when you approach the junction.
David Buchanan wrote:
> 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 THE difference between a
> biological organism and a social animal.
>
> Denis, maybe you don't agree. But you can see the logic of it, eh?
>
Yes, indeed, I see the logic. But the *nature* of the information is
different. DNA carries informations too, but they are biological.
Society carries information, but teaching how to walk or who to respect
isn't the same than using symbolic information. Any monkey can imitate
his mates, and thus information is transmitted. Add the symbolic
Intellectual layer, and a human on a telephone can reproduce a behaviour
described to him.
It follows those two schemas :
MONKEYS :
BEHAVIOUR -imitation-> BEHAVIOUR
HUMANS :
BEHAVIOUR -abstraction-> SYMBOLS -comprehension-> BEHAVIOUR
So the exchange of information isn't enough to constitute an
Intellectual level, that is agreed, but the use of symbols creates a new
world, the world of meaning, the world of the Intellect. The Intellect
grows from social interactions, but it adds a new level to those
interactions. Seen from the Intellect, everything is information, but
seen from society or biology, the notion of information doesn't exist
(of course, it's an abstraction after all).
So to conclude, I agree with your view that learned behaviour is what
differentiate biological organisms from social animals. I'll add that
symbolic representation of those selfsame behaviours is what
differentiate social animals from intellectual ones. Animals don't paint
(except Koko the intellectual gorilla ;-) ), humans do.
Be good
Denis
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