are bees concious?

[Seten]

21 hours ago, TheVat said:

You are operating with your own idiosyncratic definition of consciousness, which seems to bear little relation to the term as it is defined in cognitive sciences or philosophy of mind.  If you start defining terms any way you want, then yes, I suppose you could conjure aware magnets.  Since this is a science forum, there is an emphasis on consensus on what terms mean, hence my attempt to post the SEP summary of some commonly adopted definitions of consciousness.  For example...

What it is like. Thomas Nagel's (1974) famous“what it is like” criterion aims to capture another and perhaps more subjective notion of being a conscious organism. According to Nagel, a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature, i.e., some subjective way the world seems or appears from the creature's mental or experiential point of view. In Nagel's example, bats are conscious because there is something that it is like for a bat to experience its world through its echo-locatory senses, even though we humans from our human point of view can not emphatically understand what such a mode of consciousness is like from the bat's own point of view.

(the encyclopedia entry also describes a half dozen other ways of defining consciousness, some focused on more objective behavioral aspects, some on the perceptual, some on access to information, and some on a sort of meta-cognition - the point to make here is that we must decide which focus to discuss, when approaching the possible consciousness of very simple neural networks like a bee's brain)

 

 

Imagine being put on trial because the question of whether or not you will face capital punishment depends on whether or not you are conscious under some arbitrary definition of the word. With a prosecutor trying to prove you are not self-aware. Sounds like a TNG episode, perhaps you could have Patrick Stewart as you defense attorney. lol

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

..you are alive because of the bees..

 

They're still repulsive!

 

[Sensei]

7 minutes ago, Seten said:

They're still repulsive!

..repulsive is stupidity..

 

[Seten]

32 minutes ago, Sensei said:

..repulsive is stupidity..

 

Repulsivety is like stigma. Once you're the pegged as the villain, there is no way out.

Btw we wouldn't be alive it wasn't for the self-aware animals we eat.

Think about it, humans are the worste! We killed off the Buffalo, over the past 100 centuries we've slaughtered literally trillions of times more conscious beings than those who were murdered in WWII. And in today's world you are the worste of them all, because as a consumer of meat products the dispersion of blame between the game hunters, the meat slaughterers, and the shippers falls back on you just like the blame of war casualties falls not on the soldiers but on the government who employed them. That's negative money. 

Next time you sit down to enjoy your dinner, think about the consciousness of your food!

 

 

Edited February 22 by Seten

[ALine]

With bees, hmmmmm. Let's say both—the hive AND individually and the interaction between them for consciousness.

I think interesting research could be formed by looking at their interaction.

Also, bees are awesome. They are modern wonders of science. Also, they make hexagons. Hexagons are the bestagons.

[DrmDoc]

On 2/21/2025 at 8:01 PM, TheVat said:

You are operating with your own idiosyncratic definition of consciousness,

If you'll recall this OP...

On 2/21/2025 at 2:01 PM, ALine said:

I wanted to start a debate on whether a thing that is that small can be considered conscious.

...and the opening salvo in this debate...

On 2/21/2025 at 2:15 PM, iNow said:

How are you defining consciousness?

...so I led with my "idiosyncratic definition of consciousness...."

On 2/21/2025 at 8:01 PM, TheVat said:

...which seems to bear little relation to the term as it is defined in cognitive sciences or philosophy of mind.

In your opinion, right?

On 2/21/2025 at 8:01 PM, TheVat said:

 Since this is a science forum...

Thnaks for the reminder🤪

On 2/21/2025 at 8:01 PM, TheVat said:

...there is an emphasis on consensus on what terms mean...

Curious...is there a consensus on the meaning of consciousness?

On 2/21/2025 at 8:01 PM, TheVat said:

...hence my attempt to post the SEP summary of some commonly adopted definitions of consciousness.  For example...

What it is like. Thomas Nagel's (1974) famous“what it is like” criterion aims to capture another and perhaps more subjective notion of being a conscious organism. According to Nagel, a being is conscious just if there is “something that it is like” to be that creature, i.e., some subjective way the world seems or appears from the creature's mental or experiential point of view. In Nagel's example, bats are conscious because there is something that it is like for a bat to experience its world through its echo-locatory senses, even though we humans from our human point of view can not emphatically understand what such a mode of consciousness is like from the bat's own point of view.

(the encyclopedia entry also describes a half dozen other ways of defining consciousness, some focused on more objective behavioral aspects, some on the perceptual, some on access to information, and some on a sort of meta-cognition - the point to make here is that we must decide which focus to discuss, when approaching the possible consciousness of very simple neural networks like a bee's brain)

Hmmm...I guess there really isn't a consensus on the meaning of consciousness😊

Admittedly, my perspective of consciousness is based on my personal study and perspective of the science primarily associated with brain function...and also a little bit of basic algebra.  This perspective begins with a basic question: Can an organism possess consciousness without awareness?  I believe the answer to that question is an empirical no.  If true, then all definitions of consciousness begins with a perspective on the meaning of awareness...and if we're discussing awareness, what is its measure?

[ALine]

my new definition of consciousness: a being that can act according to the rules it sets and can behave in accordance to the awareness it devolves for itself.

[dimreepr]

8 hours ago, ALine said:

my new definition of consciousness: a being that can act according to the rules it sets and can behave in accordance to the awareness it devolves for itself.

This highlights the problem, it's automatically ambiguous bc of the language, in this case, a visual representation of an auditory representative of a common cultural experience; IOW lost in translation, or it could be a tree...

It's why mathematics is the language of physics. 

[DrmDoc]

10 hours ago, ALine said:

my new definition of consciousness: a being that can act according to the rules it sets and can behave in accordance to the awareness it devolves for itself.

When defining consciousness, shouldn't we begin by exploring and understand its human iteration?  The only measure of consciousness that we as humans are capable of fully understanding is that measure expressed by humans because of the commonality share among humans in biology, physiology, and social experience.  With humanity's iteration of consciousness as the basis for its definition, that definition should be predicated on some understanding of how human consciousness manifest. 

For my part in this discussion, I will not entertain any notion that human consciousness manifests without brain function and a nervous system stimulating that function. If we are assessing whether organisms as small as a bee possess's human equivalent consciousness, then we must assess the equivalency of a bee's central nervous system--but, I'm getting ahead of myself.

My definition of consciousness is predicated on the empirical truth that human consciousness is a product or output of brain function.  As an output of brain function, something else must occur before consciousness is produced. So, the question this raises is, what is that something?  To make a much longer post short, brain output is a response to the input it receives via its connection to our nervous system.  Consciousness in brain function does not occur without a neural network and the sensory awareness that connection provides--essentially, consciousness doesn't occur without awareness. 

[Luc Turpin]

To deepen our understanding of consciousness, it is essential to move beyond traditional definitions and investigate the relationships among consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence. This exploration invites us to consider alternative models of intelligence, such as swarm intelligence, which challenges the conventional brain-centric perspective.

Swarm intelligence is illustrated in species like ants and bees, where individual organisms adhere to simple behavioral patterns. Despite their simplicity, the collective behavior of these groups generates complex, adaptive patterns that seem to exhibit intelligence. In this framework, intelligence does not arise from a central brain; rather, it emerges from the interactions between individual agents and their environment, enhanced by feedback loops and the sharing of information.

This perspective suggests that intelligence within a swarm is not merely a product of individual minds or brains, but rather the result of decentralized, emergent interactions. A single organism within the swarm lacks the capacity for complex behavior on its own; instead, it is the collective dynamics of all members that give rise to sophisticated behaviors and problem-solving abilities. By examining these decentralized systems, we can gain valuable insights into the nature of intelligence and consciousness, broadening our understanding of what it means to be sentient.

While individual ants exhibit simple behaviors, it is undoubtedly true that as a collective, they display a rich form of intelligence that hints at some sort of consciousness.

[iNow]

On 2/21/2025 at 1:15 PM, iNow said:

How are you defining consciousness?

On 2/21/2025 at 1:21 PM, iNow said:

Ask 10 different people what it means and you'll get 12 different answers. 

On 2/21/2025 at 1:22 PM, ALine said:

there has to be one that satisfies all of them.

On 2/21/2025 at 1:23 PM, iNow said:

I cannot join you in that conclusion

Just raising this back to the top 🧠🧐

[dimreepr]

On 2/23/2025 at 2:56 AM, ALine said:

my new definition of consciousness: a being that can act according to the rules it sets and can behave in accordance to the awareness it devolves for itself.

If you want to refine your definition, think about it from the other end; what can't be conscious???

[ALine]

On 2/25/2025 at 8:20 AM, dimreepr said:

If you want to refine your definition, think about it from the other end; what can't be conscious???

that is a good question.

[dimreepr]

On 2/23/2025 at 3:08 PM, Luc Turpin said:

To deepen our understanding of consciousness, it is essential to move beyond traditional definitions and investigate the relationships among consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence.

Why?

On 2/23/2025 at 3:08 PM, Luc Turpin said:

Swarm intelligence is illustrated in species like ants and bees, where individual organisms adhere to simple behavioral patterns. Despite their simplicity, the collective behavior of these groups generates complex, adaptive patterns that seem to exhibit intelligence. In this framework, intelligence does not arise from a central brain; rather, it emerges from the interactions between individual agents and their environment, enhanced by feedback loops and the sharing of information.

Then It's not intelligent, it's an apparent force that creates a shape that's irrelevant to the question; much like gravity...

Bee's don't create hexagon's, they create circle's and physics/nature/gravity creates the illusion... 😉 

Edited Thursday at 12:49 PM by dimreepr

[ALine]

On 2/23/2025 at 10:08 AM, Luc Turpin said:

To deepen our understanding of consciousness, it is essential to move beyond traditional definitions and investigate the relationships among consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence

no...no, we need to define consciousness to understand it better.

[Luc Turpin]

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Why?

Consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence are closely interconnected, and understanding their relationships is essential to refining our definition of consciousness.

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Then It's not intelligent, it's an apparent force that creates a shape that's irrelevant to the question; much like gravity...

It is neither devoid of intelligence nor easily observable. As I've suggested in previous posts, we may need to consider the possibility that consciousness operates as a force, influencing living matter in a way similar to gravity's effect on physical matter. Alternatively, as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes, consciousness could be a fundamental property that emerges when a system processes information in a highly integrated manner. It would not be a force, but a property.

23 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Bee's don't create hexagon's, they create circle's and physics/nature/gravity creates the illusion... 😉 

The shape remains a hexagon when the hive temperature plays its role in transforming circles into hexagons. This is not an illusion. Similarly, a force or property acting upon living matter to create consciousness or intelligence would not be an illusion, but a real entity. Interestingly, your argument suggests that consciousness, much like hexagons, naturally arises from the fabric of the world itself. So, our universe would be accidentaly fine tuned for consciousness?

13 hours ago, ALine said:

no...no, we need to define consciousness to understand it better.

To truly understand consciousness, we must define it in a way that encompasses all related aspects, and not limiting ourselves to the brain alone as swarm intelligence appears to indicate.

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

It is neither devoid of intelligence nor easily observable. As I've suggested in previous posts, we may need to consider the possibility that consciousness operates as a force, influencing living matter in a way similar to gravity's effect on physical matter. Alternatively, as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes, consciousness could be a fundamental property that emerges when a system processes information in a highly integrated manner. It would not be a force, but a property.

In what way does conscience operate?

This is just the old, evolution must have an agenda bc it fits this puddle so well... 🙄

21 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

To truly understand consciousness, we must define it in a way that encompasses all related aspects, and not limiting ourselves to the brain alone as swarm intelligence appears to indicate.

No it doesn't, There's a huge difference between an anthill having the same number of neurons as a human and the quality of an individual ant's opinion on something important to a human... 🙄

[Genady]

47 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

we may need to consider the possibility that consciousness operates as a force, influencing living matter in a way similar to gravity's effect on physical matter

Don't you know that gravity is not a force?

[Luc Turpin]

21 minutes ago, Genady said:

Don't you know that gravity is not a force?

Am I not correct in saying that in Newtonian physics, gravity is a force acting between masses, whereas in general relativity, it is described as the effect of curved spacetime caused by mass and energy? So, which term best applies to gravity—force, effect, property, or something else? Regardless of the label, it still acts upon masses, and that’s the key point and analogy I was trying to convey.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

In what way does conscience operate?

We don’t have a clear answer at this point. Some believe consciousness is rooted in the brain, driven by chemicals and electrical activity, while others argue that its behavior goes beyond that, suggesting something more complex is at play.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

This is just the old, evolution must have an agenda bc it fits this puddle so well... 🙄

 

This isn’t about evolution having an agenda, but rather the possibility that consciousness is more complex and not solely rooted in the brain. You’re getting ahead of the conversation.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

No it doesn't, There's a huge difference between an anthill having the same number of neurons as a human and the quality of an individual ant's opinion on something important to a human... 🙄

If a swarm of bees, operating without a central command centre or physical connections, can generate significantly greater intelligence, it highlights an important insight into the nature of consciousness.

[StringJunky]

If bees are akin to neurons and the hive is the brain, is a single neuron conscious? I would say hives are nearer to consciousness than single bees.

Edited Friday at 02:51 PM by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

We don’t have a clear answer at this point. Some believe consciousness is rooted in the brain, driven by chemicals and electrical activity, while others argue that its behavior goes beyond that, suggesting something more complex is at play.

You're getting really good at this type of meaningless objection coupled with a vague conjecture. Chemical and electrical activity in the brain is enormously complex, and we have a much better understanding of it than "it's behavior goes beyond that" to suggest "something more complex".

[Genady]

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

it still acts upon masses

No, it does not "act upon masses". Firstly, its effect does not depend on masses of whatever it "acts" upon, it is the same for massless particles as for massive particles and regardless of their masses.

Moreover, it does not "act". Particles just stay on spacetime geodesics.

[Luc Turpin]

34 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

You're getting really good at this type of meaningless objection coupled with a vague conjecture. Chemical and electrical activity in the brain is enormously complex, and we have a much better understanding of it than "it's behavior goes beyond that" to suggest "something more complex".

Focusing on the issue rather than on me means you still need to explain how bees, lacking a central command or physical neural connections, are able to collectively exhibit more intelligence than individual bees. There's no chemical or electrical interaction between them—these processes are only present within each bee.

35 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, it does not "act upon masses". Firstly, its effect does not depend on masses of whatever it "acts" upon, it is the same for massless particles as for massive particles and regardless of their masses.

Moreover, it does not "act". Particles just stay on spacetime geodesics.

I feel like you're still missing the point I'm trying to make.

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I feel like you're still missing the point I'm trying to make.

I am not missing it. I am telling you that your metaphor / analogy is wrong.

[ALine]

4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Alternatively, as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes, consciousness could be a fundamental property that emerges when a system processes information in a highly integrated manner. It would not be a force, but a property.

Eh, i think it's more of a thing that a brain generates vs a property of the universe.

[DrmDoc]

On 2/27/2025 at 6:09 PM, ALine said:

no...no, we need to define consciousness to understand it better.

I agree; there's no understanding of consciousness without a foundation for reaching that understanding. Definitions based on faith, philosophies, and conjecture aren't a proper foundation because, imo, they reference notions and ideas that are either untestable or unobservable.  Our spectulations about the nature of consciousness in other organisms invariably relate to the manifest nature of that quality in humans.  Therefore, our definitions and basis for understanding consciousness should arise from our understanding of how that quality arises in humans.  That understanding enables our ability to identify consciousness equivalency in other species.