BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Kilty <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 23 Feb 2001 22:06:47 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (75 lines)
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Peter Borst
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Our preference for a feeding rate of 2.5
>bags per 200 litre drum
Please explain the size of the bags?
>did not see the bees storing the syrup, we have never
>seen bees cap cells of sugar syrup.
I have seen bees store and cap 1:1 sugar syrup. Indeed did not APIS last
year describe a school research project which showed some American
beekeepers had high percentages of sucrose in their honey?
> At no time have we ever fed "thick" syrup
>for stores, preferring always to leave honey on hives for stores." ref 1
>
>"On her first day as a queen, she will learn the basic layout of the colony,
>where the egg laying cells are and she will pick up the improved morale due to
>her successful birth. She is escorted around the hive, and during this time she
>meets with many of the workers as they frantically
eagerly, enthusiastically
> clean cells for the expected
>"egg laying" that the queen will do over the many months and years ahead." ref
>2
>
>These two quotes show that the term *morale* is commonly applied to honeybees.
I may be the one to have associated anthropomorphic with morale. I have
no problem using the term "morale" with bees as it conveys pretty
accurately the state of affairs. It is a complex in humans anyway.
>
>Whether it is *anthropomorphic* or not depends on what you mean by this term.
>It
>commonly refers to applying human attributes to non-human entities, like
>laughing cows or an evil wind. But the term implies that humans have
>characteristics that other creatures do not, which is being called into
>question.
This is a tight definition. It would be nice if we could all agree to
it.
>Obviously, humans are more intelligent, and have more complex languages and
>emotions than most other creatures. Also obvious is the fact that consciousness
>in animals cannot at this time be *proved*.
We can suspect it in 2 of the apes (chimpanzees and orang-utans who
recognise themselves in a mirror) and come cetaceans (a killer whale who
told someone to "take the ring" in the sounds taught to it to respond to
and dolphins who seem to create for fun - this was the *first* two-way
communication between human and animal).
> But then, it can't be disproved and
>can't really even be proved in humans (we *think* we're conscious but some have
>noted that this may be an illusion or a form of *virtual reality* which
>*represents* the actual).
If life is a dream, who is the dreamer? To apply *think* to "conscious"
is using Cartesian, limited thinking. To meditate *may* bring a sense of
Consciousness closer. Like watching bees.
>
>About bees and other animals, many terms can be applied to them such as health,
>vigor, aggresiveness, or stupor, without anyone invoking *anthropomorphism*.
>But
>when we move over to joy, sorrow, fear, and demoralization -- we get into
>disputed territory.
Funny - to say we project human experience and descriptive terms on to
bees does not imply the attribution is false. Like projecting on to
other people - what we project may be true, even if less strongly than
we think. There is something there to catch the projection.
>Gravity existed long before there was a word for it, molecules existed long
>before their existence could be proved. If we assume that animals have no
>thoughts or feelings, how will we ever know?
So many people seem to want the explanation before accepting the
phenomena. That way the phenomena are sidelined and dismissed.
> Keep an open mind, is what it is.
Absolutely.
>So, when I say "my dog is glad to see me" what is wrong here? Do I know the dog
>is glad? There is communication going on between me and the dog. I do know she
>is glad. I know how she likes to be petted and what she likes to do for fun.
Good one. If you have a dog, you know pure gladness - how I would like
that much in my life!!
--
James Kilty

ATOM RSS1 RSS2