[HN Gopher] Bumble bees play, according to new research ___________________________________________________________________ Bumble bees play, according to new research Author : pseudolus Score : 159 points Date : 2022-10-28 10:08 UTC (12 hours ago) (HTM) web link (phys.org) (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org) | chomp wrote: | From the original study: | | > We found that ball rolling (1) did not contribute to immediate | survival strategies, (2) was intrinsically rewarding, (3) | differed from functional behaviour in form, (4) was repeated but | not stereotyped, and (5) was initiated under stress-free | conditions. | | ... | | > We suggest that the behaviour observed here has actual hedonic | value for bumble bees, which adds to the growing body of evidence | of a form of sentience in these insects | nescioquid wrote: | The researches adduce from those five findings that ball- | rolling holds hedonic value for bumble bees. | | One of those findings was that ball-rolling is "intrinsically | rewarding" to a bee. | | Isn't this what you call "begging the question"? It's hedonic | because it is intrinsically rewarding. | | The article ends with the quote: | | "We are producing ever-increasing amounts of evidence backing | up the need to do all we can to protect insects that are a | million miles from the mindless, unfeeling creatures they are | traditionally believed to be." | | It gives me the impression the findings are driven by the | agenda to save the bees. Which makes me feel conflicted since I | support the aim and have lay interests in philosophy of mind. | Sharlin wrote: | > Isn't this what you call "begging the question"? It's | hedonic because it is intrinsically rewarding. | | I think what they mean is that it was not connected to an | _external_ reward (at least not one that the researchers | could identify). For example, they did not train the bees to | roll the ball in order to get sugar water or something. | [deleted] | LegitShady wrote: | I guess the question is how you would describe something like | listening to music for a human. It would be 'intrinsically | rewarding' and 'hedonic'. Why? because of our brain | structures? Hard to say. | comfypotato wrote: | Begging the question is when you conclude one of your | assumptions. "That it's intrinsically rewarding" is a finding | not an assumption. | | The study was definitely influenced by the popular notion of | saving the bees, but that's not a problem! I'd rather read | about bees having fun than any other insect! I hope others | feel the same and a friendlier sentiment towards bees | (because of the study, a little bit) helps the whole problem. | nescioquid wrote: | They said that because there's no apparent reason for the | behavior, it must be "intrinsically rewarding". Is that | really a proven conclusion, or a working premise? | | It's listed on equal footing with the observation that bees | don't engage in the behavior under stress (also a finding). | The later can be observed, while the former seems to need | access to the inner experience of the organism. | comfypotato wrote: | You sound interested enough that you might enjoy bits of | the actual paper [1]. | | They didn't exactly say the bees stopped playing under | stress. Instead they said the behavior isn't a stress | response (they know this because they eliminated stress | from the environment). Also, the evidence that it's | inherently rewarding is bolstered by the pattern of | interaction with balls. It increases over time and then | drops (typical of play), and it is unrelated to mate/food | finding. | | It's very difficult to know what animals are thinking. | The scientists say multiple times in different ways that | none of this is conclusive (the longest section regarding | knowing the behavior isn't function-related). That being | said, it's a well designed experiment in my opinion. I | think they did a good job of setting it up so that we can | conclude: "why else would they roll the balls?" | | 1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Samadi- | Galpayage/public... | nescioquid wrote: | Okay -- thanks for being patient; appreciate the link to | the paper and additional detail. | | I see the "question begging" emerged from me | misconstruing the quotes from the paper above. I think I | was especially skeptical because I wanted to believe the | conclusion. | beebeepka wrote: | Not very surprising. We, as a whole, do not recognize | intelligence in other creatures because it makes it so much | easier to do anything with or to them. Damn shame for a number of | reasons | rhaps0dy wrote: | Watch the video of the bumblebee rolling a ball, it is incredibly | cute. | lloydatkinson wrote: | https://theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/16/bees-are-rea... | csallen wrote: | _> ...insects... are a million miles from the mindless, unfeeling | creatures they are traditionally believed to be._ | | Is it truly a common belief that insects are mindless and | unfeeling? I would imagine the vast majority of people, when | polled, would guess that insects have some form of consciousness | and feeling. | | Of course, that doesn't stop people from squashing or swatting | them when they get in the way. In fact, it hasn't fully stopped | people from killing other people either. | scoofy wrote: | I think it's extremely hard to say, but I'd say it's hard to | argue for sentience when the neural system is so small. | | This is a serious problem in philosophy. The concepts of | "philosophical zombies" is a hard problem. The fact is that we | could have perfectly "sentient behavior" from creatures/beings | without any sensible consciousness involved. The sentience of | humans is debatable, even though it is readily apparent that we | experience qualia. | | Unless you're willing to accept that a rock, or a series of | silicon chips, or even a massive _mechanical_ computing machine | can have consciousness, the blurry edge of where neural systems | go from being electric discharges to a vehicle for qualia is an | extremely difficult question. | version_five wrote: | Is there something we know about the relationship between | conciousness/sentience and the size of brain? | | A computer neural network can be arbitrarily large and there | is no evidence it will ever become sentient. While we're | related to insects and afaik share some functions. I can | definitely picture the idea of their conciousness just being | a more basic version of ours. But I'm curious if there is | some evidence or reasoning that actually conciousness emerges | as some threshold gets crossed | scoofy wrote: | I mean, we don't know. We literally don't know where or how | consciousness exists. We just know that we have it, and we | try to extrapolate backwards. | | Is it a product of the prefrontal cortex? Arguably. Is it | the product of the mammalian mind? Seems plausible. The | product of a small-but-thresholded nervous system? I think | many would agree here. Is it the product of any nervous | system? Doubtful, but maybe. Is it the product of any | electrical system? Who knows, it's possible. Is it an | innate part of matter? I mean... | | Are insects conscious? I'm skeptical. Are mussels and/or | oysters conscious? I'm _very_ skeptical. Are plants | conscious? I 'm _extremely_ skeptical. | throwaway3838g wrote: | One could imagine that human's would appear unconscious to a | hyper intelligent alien species. Perhaps it's all relative. | scoofy wrote: | You're conflating consciousness with intelligence. The two | are not the same. | | One is the experience of qualia, and the ability to hold | preferences. | | The other is the behaviors associated with making | predictions and intentionally manipulating the world to | achieve tasks. | | We have a hyper-intelligent chess engines that cannot be | argued to be conscious. We also have small mammalian minds, | like Koalas, that are dumb as a brick, but are very likely | conscious. | ilkke wrote: | I am not entirely prepared to accept that koalas have | small mammalian minds | steve_adams_86 wrote: | I realized recently there's no evidence that they don't, | but a wealth of evidence that they do. | | I watch animals very closely now and I see more all the | time that they are just like me in most ways. I suppose I | used to watch them as a person who eats them, and my | comfort with doing so depended on not seeing them as | conscious creatures like me. Now that I don't eat them, | it's as though there are more similarities than there are | differences. | | I suspect if animals could speak, we'd realize they're | remarkably similar to us. This probably sounds ridiculous | to many people, and would have to me once too. | | A key part of this is not that I'm elevating animals' | conscience to that of humans so much as lowering humans'. | We tend to think we're exceptional, but I think our | exception is probably just intelligence. The rest, I | don't know, I suspect we're all very much alike. | throwaway3838g wrote: | That's a good point. I suppose then, to a hyper | intelligent alien species we would be the Koala's, | unintelligent but conscious. | nerpderp82 wrote: | I am hypo intelligent, but my coworkers definitely appear | unconscious. Incomplete, ill-posed statement fragments over | chat or better yet, in needless "sync" meetings. | | Insects display unbelievable forms intelligence to anyone | that pays attention. | contravariant wrote: | The word 'drone' refers to male bees or ants and seems to | derive from an old Germanic word for insect. | | Not saying etymology is the best indication for what people | think, but there is a connection there. | ethbr0 wrote: | In other bee-related, but different type, news today: | | "Honeybee Swarms Can Produce as Much Electric Charge as a Storm | Cloud" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/honeybee-swarms- | ca... | | Note: Title is incorrect. They're actually talking in terms of | charge density. | | _" As far as electricity generation goes, a bee swarm's charge | isn't too impressive: It would take about 50 billion bees to | power an LED light, Popular Science reports. But compared to the | charges produced by common weather events, the bees' charge | density was six times greater than an electrified dust storm and | eight times greater than a thunderstorm cloud."_ | stvnbn wrote: | I don't know why we believe animals are so different than us and | then we get so surprised when they do things like us. We're like | them! | moosey wrote: | Lacking evidence otherwise, I would say that we have to assume | the internal experience of most life with central nervous | systems are remarkably similar to ours, because we are | remarkably similar. | | The next step is to take this into account in ethics, but I | fear this is a leap that humanity in totality will not make | easily. | bmitc wrote: | I agree. It's like we forget that we're literally one of | millions, billions, or trillions (it seems the estimated count | is an open question) of species on this planet. No other | species _could possibly_ share analogous behavior. | scoofy wrote: | "Play" as a concept, is a clear social construct. | | The behaviors we call "play" is very obviously an innate | instinctual behavior for humans, and is entirely plausible the | same for bees. | | I see little here to suggest that this implies sentience apart | from simple anthropomorphism. | brnaftr361 wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the framework of the | evolutionary dogma as I know it, this behavior wouldn't make | sense. It comes at the expense of energy and time, yielding no | benefit, and thus is a net detriment and should therefore be | bred out of the species with the one exception being some sort | of higher process like emotional gratification. | | At least I can't imagine any sort of logical pattern where this | improves fitness other than because it is emotionally | gratifying, which I would posit necessarily intersects with | biology beyond the very simplistic instinctual-automaton model. | throwanem wrote: | > biology beyond the very simplistic instinctual-automaton | model | | This concept belongs to behaviorism, which is one school of | thought in biology. Its massive and unjustifiable dominance | in the benighted 20th century notwithstanding, it is far from | the only one. My experience has been that the results of | ethological research into hymenopteran behavior, at least, | yield far more predictive power than much of anything from | the behaviorist school. It would not at all surprise me if | this were one case in a much broader pattern. | scoofy wrote: | I mean, I'm no expert, but I think this position is more than | a bit rigid. We know that evolutionary development | _probabilistically_ yields maximized efficiency, but we also | know there is plenty of room for drift and it can be a bit | random. | | E.g. anti-fragile behaviors likely yield the best outcomes, | even if they are less efficient, because the ultimate | evolutionary failure is extinction (not death). Highly | regular, efficient behavior are great for the individuals | survival, but terrible for the species survival. | comfypotato wrote: | The play could also have benefits evolutionarily. While the | behavior take energy, it teaches motor skills (which is | more relevant to the younger bees who played more). I'm | just using this (admittedly weak) example to show that play | isn't necessarily less than optimal behavior. | cad1 wrote: | There used to be a bumble bee that, I was convinced, would come | around to play with my dog, a Labrador. It was entertaining to | watch. When the dog was outside the bumble bee would hover near | his face to get his attention. Once he noticed the bee he would | growl, jump, and bite at the bee but not in an aggressive manor. | It was in his playful tone, the same as when I played with him | and his toys. Every time he lunged at the bee it would dart back | and always stay just out of reach. Then the bee would zoom in | closer and they would repeat this for a few minutes until one of | them would get distracted. As far as I know they never made | direct contact. RIP good boy | silisili wrote: | Are you sure it wasn't a male carpenter bee? That's pretty | standard(annoying) behavior for them. | throwanem wrote: | They have no stingers and, if you hold still, so will they. | Fascinating to watch, although one did once try to crawl into | my ear. | he11ow wrote: | Paying it forward: | | An article by David Graeber I first saw here, where he argues the | utilitarian evolutionary view (every action witnessed in animals | is there to somehow increase changes of survival) is a relic of | the industrial revolution. Instead, he says, playing is a key | feature of life. | | https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-hav... | abfan1127 wrote: | what says play doesn't increase the chance of survival? | guerrilla wrote: | If you spend any time researching play at all, you'll find | that's pretty much a universal view among scientists who | study it. It's essential training and learning for survival. | Love Graeber, RIP, but if that's something he claimed then | he's unfortunately off on that one. | Vrondi wrote: | I thought that it has long since been understood that any trait | which does not inhibit reproduction is ignored by natural | selection, and therefore does not get "weeded out" by the | process of evolution. This is why there can be long standing | diversity within populations. | throwanem wrote: | I love the optimism, but regret to report that this simple | aspect of natural selection is anything _but_ widely | understood. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-28 23:00 UTC)