Phil Veldhuis wrote:
> 
> 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...
> 
> PhilI have a book titled ‘Animal Societies, from Bee to Gorilla’ by Remy 
Chauvin (Sphere Books, London, 1971). There are 80 pages on bees, much of 
it on their intelligence, every page fascinating. He questions the 
‘concept of the bee as an isolated insect’. He continues ‘What sort of an 
individual is it that can live only a few hours out of contact with its 
fellows? Surely some essential factor is missing, as in the case of 
tissue cultures which degenerate and take the form of ordinary connective 
tissue when separated from the parent body. Suppose the bee to be no more 
than an abstract idea in our minds, suppose insect societies to be not 
societies but organisms of which the bees, the ants, the termites are the 
cells? This would merely presuppose that the intercellular relationships 
are less well defined than in our own bodies: the “cells” could detach 
themselves temporarily from the organism to go and search for food, 
defend the colony against attack etc. And all the comparisons that have 
been made, or could be made, between human society and that of bees would 
come from a basic misunderstanding of the true nature of bees.’
He describes the hive as a “super-organism”. He discusses the organisms 
ability to contain its reproductive organs (ovaries of the queen and 
testicles of the male), respiration through ventilation (fanning), 
circulation (exchange of food), heat production. He asks ‘where is the 
nervous system, where is the brain? ... If , in fact, the little brains 
can interconnect, pool their resources and all work together they can 
then work on a far superior level.’. He compares this mind pooling with 
the uselessness of one memory cell of a computer (remember it’s 1971, he 
is aware of ‘a big electronic calculating machine’ using ferite rings for 
memory!) and its power when many are combined.
What I’ve extracted is but a sample. Each page is filled with revelations 
and new ways of looking at bees, weird and wonderful experiments that 
test their ability to learn and adapt.
Hope those interested can find a copy. I think there’s one at my local 
second hand bookshop, happy to post it at cost to anyone that asks if 
it’s still there. Regards from banjobee 'downunder'.