Intelligence in Nature - Jeremy Narby [78]
Â
P. 57: BEES ARE NOT AUTOMATA
Menzel and Giurfa (2001) write: âInsects have traditionally been considered simple and small reflex automata. However, this particular view overlooks the fact that insects, like most living organisms, flexibly process information in order to adapt to their environmentâ¦insects are evolutionarily extremely successful, having penetrated all habitats and outnumbering by far all other multicellular organisms, both in absolute and in species numbers. The insect brain must therefore provide intelligent solutions to a wide range of ecologically relevant problems in order to assure such evolutionary successâ (p. 62).
Â
P. 59: SWARM INTELLIGENCE
Leslie (2002) writes under the heading âWhat a bunch of dumb insects can teach us about intelligenceâ: âThe insects exhibit what computer scientists call swarm intelligence: each individual is dim-witted, but the collective actions of the many produce apparently smart behavior, like a brain relying on millions of simple neurons. For instance, if you put an obstacle in the path of a column of foraging ants, they will find the shortest way around itâ(p. 45).
Â
P. 59: EMERGENCE
Johnson (2001) writes in his book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software: âThe simplicity of the ant languageâand the relative stupidity of the individual antsâis, as the computer programmers say, a feature not a bug. Emergent systems can grow unwieldy when their component parts become excessively complicated. Better to build a densely interconnected system with simple elements, and let the more sophisticated behavior trickle upâ¦Having individual agents capable of directly assessing the overall state of the system can be a reliability in swarm logic, for the same reason that you donât want one of the neurons in your brain to suddenly become sentientâ (p. 78). He adds: âAn important distinction must be drawn between ant colonies and cities, though, and it revolves around the question of volition. In a harvester ant colony, the individual ants are relatively stupid, following elemental laws without anything resembling free will. As we have seen, the intelligence of the colony actually relies on the stupidity of its component parts: an ant that suddenly started to make conscious decisions about, say, the number of ants on midden duty would be disastrous. You can make the case that this scenario doesnât apply at all to human settlements: cities are higher-level organisms, but their component partsâhumansâare far more intelligent, and more self-reflective, than ants are. We consciously make decisions about where to live or shop or stroll; weâre not simply driven by genes and pheromones. And so the social patterns we form tend to be substantially more complex than those of the ant worldâ (p. 97).
Â
P. 62: INSECT PAIN
Wigglesworth (1980) writes: âPerhaps the most significant result of the âMolecular Biologyâ of the past 25 years is the bond it has established between ourselves and the âlower animals.â They have become so close to us. Indeed, nowadays one has the same feeling of unease in speaking of the âlower animalsâ as one would in referring to the âlower classes.â I think we should approach the problem of pain by thinking of the insect as a little human beingâ¦For the most part insects behave as though their integument is insensitive to pain. They show no manifestation of pain on cutting the cuticule: they cannot cry out, but they do not flinch or run. Whereas a nip with forceps is very painful to us, a caterpillar treated in this way shows no sustained signs of agitationâ¦I believe that most of the manipulations to which we commonly subject insects are not causing them painâ¦But I am sure that insects can feel pain if the right stimulus is given. High temperature seems the