RE: Stupid bees.
Well, my off-hand estimate of the intelligence of bees has ruffled a few
feathers, and since I happen to be writing a thesis on the subject at
the moment, I'm all warmed up. Here's some thoughts stimulated by 2 of
the comments forwarded to me.
1.
I thought some Bee liners would be unhappy about bees being called
"stupid". Maybe a single bee does not have much brain power but I think
it is important to regard the whole colony as a single individual
especially in terms of brain power.
This is exactly my point, except that it seems prettly clear that our
normal use of 'intelligence' is as a function of single organisms. When
we say that "the faculty of harvard are intelligent" we mean "the
individuals that constitute the faculty of harvard are each severally
intelligent". We might say that "the faculty of harvard made an
intelligent choice" if they collectively chose wisely, but then what we
mean is that the choice is one that typifies those made by an
intelligent person.
The point: intelligence ranges over single organisms, but can be used
descriptively of the actions of groups. To say that a beehive is
intelligent is descriptive of its actions, not an evaluation of the
individual bees.
To speak of the collective intelligence of the beehive is just one way
of committing the fallacy of composition. Nevertheless, there may be
some heuristic value in supposing the beehive acts "as-if" it were a
single intelligence. That is, managing a bee-hive might be simpler and
easier if you suppose that there is a collective intelligence at work.
Serious reflection of the matter should tell you that this cannot be the
case. (philosophers call using a false theory to obtain results
instrumentalism, the theory is an instrument, but not something you
believe in itself).
2.
"Bees are stupid little thing" With all due respect I object. Bees
communicate communication is intelligent ,intelligence is NORMALLY an
absence of stupidity.
Whether communication is intelligent is really very controversal.
consider the following excerpted from my thesis:
It is clear that animals communicate with each other, and with humans;
but not all communication is linguistic. "A dog accompanied by a
particular pungent odour communicates to us the fact that it has
accosted a skunk. …yet we are not tempted to suppose … the dog is using
language" [Hiel p. 400]. Males of different species go through
elaborate displays of behaviour in attempts to gain sexual access to the
females of their species. Their behaviour communicates their fitness
for mating, even though it seems implausible to think that they intend
to communicate their fitness. For instance, elk roar, and this roaring
requires significant lung and chest muscle fitness. Female elk tend to
select as mates males who have the best display of roaring behaviour.
Since any elk that can produce a decent display of roaring is
undoubtedly a healthy specimen, male elk communicates fitness by
roaring. Clearly, however, this is not a case of language even though
the message the male sends is his relative fitness and the message the
female receives is his relative fitness. In linguistic communication,
ceterus paribus, the communicator intends for the communicatee to get
the message. Philosophers refer to this feature of language as
intentionality; and many (such as Donald Davidson) think that it is a
crucial feature of language.
Whether any animal communication is genuinely linguistic is an important
question to cognitive ethology because there is clearly a version of the
apartness thesis which is predicated on language. According to the
linguistic apartness thesis, language use is at least a crucial symptom
of the difference in kind between animals and humans.
According to a strong philosophical tradition, only genuinely linguistic
communication is intelligent...
Anyway, I hope this helps clear a few things up.
BTW, the bee-relevant sections of my thesis are basically complete, I
guess I could email it to anyone interested...
Phil
|
