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

Bumble bees play, according to new research

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#11

Post by [deleted] »

nescioquid wrote: post #8
chomp wrote: post #2

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…

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…

[deleted]

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#12

Post by Vrondi »

he11ow wrote: post #5

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...

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.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#13

Post by csallen »

> …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.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#14

Post by contravariant »

csallen wrote: post #13

> …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…

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.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#15

Post by guerrilla »

abfan1127 wrote: post #6
he11ow wrote: post #5

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...

what says play doesn't increase the chance of survival?

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.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#16

Post by scoofy »

csallen wrote: post #13

> …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…

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.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#17

Post by comfypotato »

nescioquid wrote: post #8
chomp wrote: post #2

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…

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…

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.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#18

Post by scoofy »

"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.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#19

Post by throwaway3838g »

scoofy wrote: post #16
csallen wrote: post #13

> …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…

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 th…

One could imagine that human’s would appear unconscious to a hyper intelligent alien species. Perhaps it’s all relative.

Re: Bumble bees play, according to new research

#20

Post by Sharlin »

nescioquid wrote: post #8
chomp wrote: post #2

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…

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…

> 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.

Post reply on HN