Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

atlasobscura.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 86 posts

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#71

Post by eternalban »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #68
eternalban wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are ruling out the possibility of unconscious (in the Jungian sense) and subconscious components of human will.

Correct, this is my deterministic take.

So,

- the un-conscious processes are fully deterministic.

- all consciousness is a post fact [deterministic] process.

- [thus] free will and control are illusory.

The first thing that jumps out here is: what purpose does consciousness serve in this system?

You have effectively reduced consciousness to the status of the appendix of the psyche: an entirely useless thing with the defining feature of having an entirely erroneous perception of the state of affairs.

Related to that then is the fact of the existence of a boundary between conscious and subconscious content of the psyche.

I assert that your position compels you to hold the very boundary between consciousness and subconsciousness to be "illusory" as well. It is in fact this 'illusion' of 'being' that has driven your ego to pretend to godlike powers such as choice, and will.

Are we even having this conversation? ;)

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#72

Post by s1artibartfast »

eternalban wrote: post #71
s1artibartfast wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, this is my deterministic take.

So, - the un-conscious processes are fully deterministic. - all consciousness is a post fact [deterministic] process. - [thus] free will and control are illusory. The first thing that jumps out here is: what purpose does consciousness serve in this system? You have effectively reduced consciousness to the status of the appendix of the psyche: an entirely useless thing with the defining feature of having an entirely e…

>The first thing that jumps out here is: what purpose does consciousness serve in this system

I dont know, but could throw out a few ideas. One is that consciousness is part of a post processing step for memory storage, abstract analysis, or feedback loops. Another possibility is that is an unnecessary artifact or emergent property, more the laryngeal nerve than the appendix of the brain.

>I assert that your position compels you to hold the very boundary between consciousness and subconsciousness to be "illusory" as well.

I don't think that the boundary is illusory as much as arbitrary, from a functional perspective. The Ego is clearly not aware of processing below a certain level, but where that level lies is meaningless to an outside observer.

The biology of consciousness is a funny thing. Brain imaging has been able to detect what decision a person makes up to seven seconds before they are conscious of it [1]. You can perform a hemispherectomy removing half of the brain and people are still conscious.[2] IF the removed half was put in a second body, could it be conscious as well??

As far as I am aware, there is no scientific evidence for free will, and no plausible mechanism is physics.

[1] https://www.wired.com/2008/04/mind-decision/ [2] https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/17092-hemis....

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#73

Post by ycombinete »

thimkerbell wrote: post #70
ycombinete wrote: post #3

At first I didn’t understand what the motivation for such complex social behaviour, and risk taking. But then they explained the acorn larders. Large static depositories of food wealth. This makes me think of humanity and the organisation of large societies, and war, that appears to be associated with the development of agriculture.

Native Americans, did the nomadic tribes fight more or less than the ag ones? Before they got horses, which would have changed things.

So I suppose that fighting over a scarce resource is the natural state of almost every form of life.

War, then, is a logical result of complex social structures. The more static and wealthy the resource the more pitched the battles.

I would imagine nomadic cultures to have less cause for war. At least until they clash over a resource. Or, their mode of resource gathering incorporates piracy of other groups wealth. I’m thinking of peoples like the Vikings, the Spartans [0], or IIRC the Comanche. Usually becuase there is pressure to do so. As in Sparta where their arable land was insufficient to support their population.

[0] https://sites.google.com/site/megaraathenssparta/spartan-eco...

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#74

Post by yetihehe »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #59
yetihehe wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of hitting people who say we have no free will. I tried it once, but it's counter-productive for discussion. Subject was more occupied with the fact of hitting him than with continuing discusussion if my action should have consequences or not (no free will = I didn't do it out of my own will, so why should I suffer consequences).

I think your problem is that you assume free will is a prerequisite for accountability, consequences, or justice. When my computer breaks, I either fix it or replace it. I don't ask if the computer actively chose to break. Assume there is a robot programmed to walk around punching people, do you ignore it because it isn't making choices? Similarly, if a person is walking around punching people due to a combination of…

> Similarly, if a person is walking around punching people due to a combination of random and deterministic factors (no free will), do you ignore them?

I will ask why they are punching people and might join if cause is valid. I'm not yet convinced if we have free will or not, whole concept looks a little meaningless when you look at it too closely.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#75

Post by yetihehe »

watwut wrote: post #52
yetihehe wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of hitting people who say we have no free will. I tried it once, but it's counter-productive for discussion. Subject was more occupied with the fact of hitting him than with continuing discusussion if my action should have consequences or not (no free will = I didn't do it out of my own will, so why should I suffer consequences).

Possibly the subject war preprogrammed to seek punishment after being hit?

No, he was totally stumped, did not speak with me that evening and later said that he still doesn't know why I hit him. We were drunk at the time and philosophical discussions between drunk people are rarely valuable in my experience.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#76

Post by clairity »

dalbasal wrote: post #42
clairity wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while you make an interesting point at the end, that framing seems to be jumping the gun (something you rightfully warned against in relation to deterministic vs random, downthread). political conflict is much more complex and has many more gradations than just peace or war. on the "elephant queen" documentary, the narrator noted that the bulls rarely ever fight, but rather, upon meeting have a quick "discussion" whe…

What's the frame you find premature?

that war is such an essential characteristic to categorize it as a precognitive process. politics, as progenitor to war, is the jockeying of position for constrained resources, which seems to me to be the more discriminating, if less provocative, framing. politics pervades life, war not so much.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#77

Post by dalbasal »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #58
dalbasal wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is evolution by natural selection deterministic or random?

Both. Evolution by natural selection is composed of several processes and events, some of which are random, some of which are deterministic.

...That was an example in a context re: free will. Determinism vs randomness dichotomy.

Evolution is not distinctly either, which is my point.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#78

Post by jyriand »

ManBlanket wrote: post #35

Two days ago I heard a loud, "SQUEE! Bock bock bock bock." from our back yard. Two (Flicker) woodpeckers were fighting in the branches of a maple, our chickens standing around foot of the tree seemingly captivated by the spectacle. I assume the cause of the commotion was the tussle finding its way to the ground, startling the chickens. When I realized what was going on my daughter and I crept outside to watch. The wo…

That read like a paragraph from Jack London's "Call of the Bird".

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#79

Post by SusAnnie »

These birds are so much fun to watch! We have oaks in our yard, and there’s a telephone pole out back that seems to be their primary base of operations. There is always a group of them sitting on the top of the pole. They will fly off to the trees and then regroup at the pole to “chat” for a bit before flying off again. This will keep happening all day.
Post reply on HN