How smart are insects?

[Write4U]

(It may be moot, but why would you change the question?)
No. The question was: How intelligent are insects?
I did not see the relevance of all the fancy couldn't-be-any-other-way mathematical patterns to the intelligence of insects -
or to the response - instinct - genetic memory - problem solving continuum in the evolution of thought.
Still can't, but that's all right.

It is hard to visualize gradual improvement in complexity and sentience over time.
But if we consider farmers who purposely select the best breeders, so does nature by "natural selection" (probability) which obviously requires long periods of time, for probabilities to be "tested" by nature, whereas in farming, certain traits can be achieved in a relatively sort time (a few generations).
And we can also look at athletes, who can improve on their performance in very short times, by sheer practice.
If sports is a family's means of survival, I would be willing to bet that offspring, gradually become better at it from observation alone, but when combined with practice, the chance that this offspring will develop better skills in their sport, than say a family of bookkeepers, who get better at maths. The environment itself forces specialization and given enough time, this specialization becomes part of the DNA coding.

Oh, lest we forget *mutations*. Below is what I believe to be the evolutionary stage of hominids and at what point home sapiens must have split from its common hominid ancestor. A simple mutation which is only present in only humans and not in any other hominid. I believe this was a significant mutation, which perhaps stimulated brain growth.

Introduction
All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong

http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm

 

[Jeeves]

It is hard to visualize gradual improvement in complexity and sentience over time.

No, it isn't.
What's hard is to see where following mindless rote math patterns turns into sentience; how 'hard-wiring' becomes 'free will'.

And we can also look at athletes, who can improve on their performance in very short times, by sheer practice.

Again, not automatically: that's a sentient function: they make purposeful decisions about what skills need improvement, which exercise will achieve the best results,
how long, how hard, how much of their resources to commit and what to give up or leave unsatisfied.
And, of course, there's a ceiling. When an athlete or musician or mathematician has reached the upper limit of his physical and mental capacity, he stagnates, then begins to decline.
Evolution, on the other hand, has no 'up' or 'down', 'better' or 'worse'; it keeps proceeding in the direction of most genes surviving to the next generation.

If sports is a family's means of survival, I would be willing to bet that offspring, gradually become better at it from observation alone, but when combined with practice, the chance that this offspring will develop better skills in their sport, than say a family of bookkeepers, who get better at maths.

I'd like to see statistical data on a reasonable sample - say 1000 families of each, tracked over four or five generations.
I'll go so far as to say that both successful athletes and successful bookkeepers are likely to raise healthier offspring than unsuccessful musicians or thieves.

The environment itself forces specialization and given enough time, this specialization becomes part of the DNA coding.

That's the crux of the matter. It's because of so great a variety of environments and conditions that we have over 12000 species of ants.
Every one of their adaptations happened over time, in response to a change in their circumstances -
and every one of those responses was a departure from rote performance of automatic tasks, by one or more individuals.

 

[Write4U]

No, it isn't.
What's hard is to see where following mindless rote math patterns turns into sentience; how 'hard-wiring' becomes 'free will'.

Again, not automatically: that's a sentient function: they make purposeful decisions about what skills need improvement, which exercise will achieve the best results,
how long, how hard, how much of their resources to commit and what to give up or leave unsatisfied.
And, of course, there's a ceiling. When an athlete or musician or mathematician has reached the upper limit of his physical and mental capacity, he stagnates, then begins to decline.
Evolution, on the other hand, has no 'up' or 'down', 'better' or 'worse'; it keeps proceeding in the direction of most genes surviving to the next generation.

I'd like to see statistical data on a reasonable sample - say 1000 families of each, tracked over four or five generations.
I'll go so far as to say that both successful athletes and successful bookkeepers are likely to raise healthier offspring than unsuccessful musicians or thieves.

That's the crux of the matter. It's because of so great a variety of environments and conditions that we have over 12000 species of ants.
Every one of their adaptations happened over time, in response to a change in their circumstances - and every one of those responses was a departure from rote performance of automatic tasks, by one or more individuals.

True, but consider the many ways organisms can evolve. Moreover, solitary organisms need unique and sometimes drastic changes in their DNA coding. Such is not required in a smooth running hive environment.

From every example, an ant looks like an ant and has not physically evolved to be more than an ant, unlike say, the cuttlefish, which evolved from slugs, but is no longer recognizable as a slug..

Scientists used to believe that the DNA with which we are born is the sole determinant for who we are and will become, however studies have shown that strict genetic determinism is a flawed theory. Thus, a new field of study called epigenetics was born, which is quite exciting.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/can-you-change-your-dna-2.html

Epigenetics

Epigenetics is the study, in the field of genetics, of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that are caused by external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells read genes instead of being caused by changes in the DNA sequence. Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

I find this explanation very credible. DNA is a chemical string. Why should DNA be exempt from chemical interactions as any other chemical in a free state? And as shown, the evolution from hominid to human was most likely due to a (probabilistically) mutation of two genes merging into a single (perhaps significant) chromosome.

But more importantly, do ants need to evolve all that much? For what purpose? In a hive, a perfectly working machine, individuality is not tolerated. Thus while there may be mutations from genetic drift, these individuals will be eliminated because they would disturb the orderly hardwired functions of the rest. Perhaps ant's DNA responds to its environment and food source, without altering the DNA structure at all.

"Ants already control the planet," said Mark W. Moffett, an entomologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., and author of "Adventures Among Ants: A Global Safari with a Cast of Trillions" (University of California Press, 2011). "They just do it under our feet."
For instance, there are many more ants than there are humans, and their total weight, or biomass, equals or exceeds that of humans, Moffett said.

They also use traditional military rules of engagement to wage war. For instance, they rely on "shock and awe," in essence swarming their enemies with sheer numbers to overcome them.

Ants also throw the weakest, scrawniest members of the colony out front while keeping their "supersoldier" ants to the rear, just as the front lines in many battles are made up of the least trained and most poorly equipped soldiers, Moffett said.

This strategy has proven incredibly successful.

http://www.livescience.com/46866-planet-apes-next-dominant-species.html

As I see it, ants only evolve to their specific environment and food source. That's why we have 12000 varieties, each with similar fundamental DNA, but with ever so slight genetic responses to the requirements of their environment, without the need for major physical changes.

Such an example can be found in caterpillars. When caterpillars infest a tree, the tree will start producing tannin, randomly distributed among its leaves. Tannin is difficult for caterpillars to digest and they must alter their digestive chemistry . Then when encountering an unaffected leaf, they again need to change their digestive chemistry. This constant switch, requires a lot of energy and inhibits the consumption and growth of the caterpillar, and its capacity to metamorphosize.

A clever tree trick, confuse your enemy by changing chemistry as a defense against being killed by caterpillars, which would otherwise eat every leaf and kill the tree.

 

[Write4U]

This related article offers several hypotheses. It turns ot that insects used to be much larger, such as the dragon fly with 6' wingspan. Thus insects have evolved to be smaller, and thereby become a smaller target for predators, such as birds. A function of natural selection.

Not enough oxgyen
Perhaps the most plausible hypothesis, and one that Harrison has studied extensively, is the role played by oxygen. Insects "breathe" via tiny tubes called trachea, which passively transport oxygen from the atmosphere to bodily cells. Once insects reach a certain size, the theory goes, the insect will require more oxygen than can be shuttled through its trachea.

Support for this theory comes from the fact that about 300 million years ago, many insects were much larger than they are today. There were, for example, dragonflies the size of hawks, with wingspans of about 6 feet (1.8 meters), and ants the size of hummingbirds. At this time, the oxygen content in the atmosphere was about 35 percent, versus 21 percent today.

Harrison's work has shown that almost all insects get smaller if you rear them in low oxygen conditions; many of them get bigger when you give them more oxygen. Certain species can get about 20 percent bigger in a single generation when given more oxygen, he said.

http://www.livescience.com/24122-why-insects-are-not-bigger.html

Even though hives have several forms of air-conditioning, it would not surprise me to find that oxygen levels in hives are just a little lower than in the open air, which allows the insect to perform at maximum efficiency, when leaving the hive in search for food or why soldiers (who spend a lot of time outdoors are able to grow larger.

 

[Write4U]

No, it isn't.
What's hard is to see where following mindless rote math patterns turns into sentience; how 'hard-wiring' becomes 'free will'.

Apparently, that strategy is not suitable for insects. They just remain hardwired little robots.
However, it seems that even hardwired neural systems are able to recognize certain mathematical patterns, such as quantity. And once there is cognition and choice of two different quantities, the innate knowledge of mathematical functions, will guide the organism to the largest resource. Determinism or Free Will?

Lemurs cannot count, yet they can tell the difference between *more* and *less*. They can do this as well as humans, when the experiment has the requirement of *instant* (intuitive) response. Many other animals have this and possibly other instinctive mathematical abilities, such as recognizing wave-lengths (from Sonar to EM), including gravitational waves. This makes sense, when assuming that reality and our perceptions is mathematical in its fundamental nature and everything in the universe has a mathematical underpinning, such as its geometry and in the chemical structures of elements and their atomic interactions when mixed.

Why should anything NOT function in some mathematical way? Animate or inanimate, what would it do or be? It certainly would still be as chaotic as during universal inflation. What is ordering chaos into evolving patterns? IMO, this ordering is accomplished by certain fundamental mathematical functions, which allowed for the evolution of today's reality.

 

[TheFrogger]

When an Insect consumes food, it continues to be an Insect. It's life has been prolonged. It is therefore free to continue consumption. Should an Insect BE consumed, it is no longer an Insect...

 

[Write4U]

When an Insect consumes food, it continues to be an Insect. It's life has been prolonged. It is therefore free to continue consumption. Should an Insect BE consumed, it is no longer an Insect...

Yeah.......something like *natural selection*

But consider this, if both man and ants (leaving a few human and ant societies, able to produce off-spring), were to disappear, it would take the insect a few months to return to its original numbers, where it would take humans millenia. Short life-spans demand reproduction at a much faster rate than for long lived organisms with long gestational periods, only to produce from one to six offspring. Insects multiply by the billions. Not all make it and cease to be insects, true.

The insect reproduces at an enormous exponential rate. As Hellstrom said, (apart from bacteria) most all living organisms are on the decline, except for homo sapiens and the lowly insect. Man because he can control his environment, and the insect, because it can adapt to any change man does to the environment. It can almost always adapt (trees, rocks, mounds, underground, nomadic, due to their enormous number and variety.

The insect was the first to re-inhabit the chernoble radioactive blast site. For their small size and simplicity of internal functions, these critters are tough, man. They have been through all natural disasters, without the need for drastic changes in functionality. It may not be intelligent, but it has proven to be a functional form of "simple" survival skills.

But then, we also have Tardigrades and Extremophiles, which are so simple, they cannot be killed except by brute force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardigrade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremophile

 

[Jeeves]

Apparently, that strategy is not suitable for insects. They just remain hardwired little robots.

You're not pleading special creation for insects...? They were always like that; they will always be like that; end of story.
Well, maybe they have achieved perfection - for the world as we know it - but I'm pretty sure they didn't spring, fully formed,
complete with colonies and hives, out of the primordial rock-face.
And wiring 12000+ species of different ants - never mind all the grasshoppers, butterflies and wasps would confound even God's robot factory.

Why should anything NOT function in some mathematical way?

Who said anything doesn't? I asked how did anything become more than mathematical functions.
It's not unusual for someone to be keen on math and also have a craving for sex, beer and Ramen noodles
- remove lid from a university dormitory; see hive activity.

I'm not putting down math. I'm positing that the animate population has math+plus.

 

[Write4U]

Jeeves said,
You're not pleading special creation for insects...? They were always like that; they will always be like that; end of story.

Probably, except in greater numbers.

Well, maybe they have achieved perfection - for the world as we know it - but I'm pretty sure they didn't spring, fully formed, complete with colonies and hives, out of the primordial rock-face.

Of course not, they evolved from even simpler organisms

And wiring 12000+ species of different ants - never mind all the grasshoppers, butterflies and wasps would confound even God's robot factory.[/ quote] I think the fractal growth of additional neurons and connections is an exponential function. For safety reasons the ant evolved in reduced size, and the skull size restrictions prevented additional layers of brain tissue, which was not required to begin with.

A similar limitation is probably reached in humans, where the vagina can accommodate only a limited size skull. It is to be seen if we have come to an evolutionary brain growth obstacle. Will we get even smarter?

Who said anything doesn't? I asked how did anything become more than mathematical functions.
It's not unusual for someone to be keen on math and also have a craving for sex, beer and Ramen noodles - remove lid from a university dormitory; see hive activity.

As Tegmark proposes all those "alsos" are also mathematical (chemical) or chemical functions.

I'm not putting down math. I'm positing that the animate population has math+plus.

I think I understand what you are saying; having the ability to experience another's reality, which allows you to look at phenomena from different perspectives and that creates understanding and empathy. The Plus is our ability to use this understanding to be able to plan long-range projects, such as dikes to hold back the ocean, tall building to save space. and last but not least, imitate those incredible skills of other animals.

 

[DaveC426913]

Write4U, you seem to have contradicted yourself.

They were always like that; they will always be like that [?]

Probably, except in greater numbers.

The above implies insects have been, and will be, unchanging.

Yet you acknowledge they have changed:

...I'm pretty sure they didn't spring, fully formed, complete with colonies and hives, out of the primordial rock-face.

Of course not, they evolved from even simpler organisms

 

[Write4U]

Write4U, you seem to have contradicted yourself.
The above implies insects have been, and will be, unchanging.
Yet you acknowledge they have changed:

I am not arguing that Darwinian evolution and natural selection cannot function at extremely small scales all. On the contrary, I am arguing that brain evolution does not just happen by pure chance, but by an expanding ability to examine the earth from an ant's perspective.

Even from an AI perspective, we are running out of space on our flat boards, in spite of constant improvements on efficiency and speed
So, now we are going to be stacking layers of the boards

In microelectronics, a three-dimensional integrated circuit (3D IC) is an integrated circuit manufactured by stacking silicon wafers and/or dies and interconnecting them vertically using through-silicon vias (TSVs) so that they behave as a single device to achieve performance improvements at reduced power and smaller footprint than conventional two dimensional processes. 3D IC is just one of a host of 3D integration schemes that exploit the z-direction to achieve electrical performance benefits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_integrated_circuit

The brain is a fractal information carrying circuitry that grows new tendrils as it learns and records information into its mirror processors (memories), which translate all the mathematical values and functions as patterns (of any density) in our reality, just as in a primitive hive mind. With humans, the entire hive resides inside the skin and all information goes to a giant central processor and decisions made on acquired instinctual and understanding the possible threat, from the patterns of behaviors. Its all just squeezed into a single skull of each individual now.

 

[Jeeves]

... they evolved from even simpler organisms

Much, much, much simpler ones, obviously. An insect is hugely complex, both in physical structure and its range of possible behaviours and responses to stimuli.
Not only has the class of insect itself come about through evolution from less complex life-forms, but has diversified into some 30 different orders, each with multiple species.
Every one of the changes - every specialization, every differentiation, every adaptation to a newly available diet or ecological niche - came about through steps -
little, tiny incremental bug-steps.
That's not an assembly-line; that's a history.
Do you not see the distinction?

 

[Jeeves]

I am arguing that brain evolution does not just happen by pure chance, but by an expanding ability to examine the earth from an ant's perspective.

So am I. Precisely that: things change; animal changes. If more thinking is required by new conditions, smarter animal raises more new animals than dumber animal.
Same with insects. I am thinking of the ant's perspective. She's not a robot; she is an animal of very little brain.

 

[Write4U]

Much, much, much simpler ones, obviously. An insect is hugely complex, both in physical structure and its range of possible behaviours and responses to stimuli.
Not only has the class of insect itself come about through evolution from less complex life-forms, but has diversified into some 30 different orders, each with multiple species.
Every one of the changes - every specialization, every differentiation, every adaptation to a newly available diet or ecological niche - came about through steps -
little, tiny incremental steps.
That's not an assembly-line; that's a history.
Do you not see the distinction?

I am in total agreement, there are several causalities for evolutionary changes on the methods of delivering male sperm to the female egg, each using a currently efficient way to insure procreation. But, there is always this double strand mixing of the male and female chromosomal coding. Each generation bring more variety into the mix along with its strenghts and weaknesses. Natural selection does the rest.

p.s. the cuttlefish females seem to favor not the largest most powerful males, but ones who are cleverest in disguise. Small males may disguise themselves as females and passed two warring big adults and will unchallenged approach the female and deposit his sperm. these females like intellectual problem solving.

 

[Jeeves]

I am in total agreement, there are several causalities for evolutionary changes on the methods of delivering male sperm to the female egg, each using a currently efficient way to insure procreation. But, there is always this double strand mixing of the male and female chromosomal coding. Each generation bring more variety into the mix along with its strenghts and weaknesses. Natural selection does the rest.

We know how sexual reproduction works! (Actually, changes can take place over time even with asexual reproduction, but the odds are greatly reduced.)
All I'm saying is: you maths and physics types already have the universe -
I claim the ants for biology.
They're not robots and nobody wired them.

 

[Write4U]

We know how sexual reproduction works! (Actually, changes can take place over time even with asexual reproduction, but the odds are greatly reduced.)
All I'm saying is: you maths and physics types already have the universe -
I claim the ants for biology.
They're not robots and nobody wired them.

I agree with the first , but not the second. They are biological organisms , which by necessity transmit functional information throughout the *wholeness* via a fractal neural information network, the most efficient network is a fractally expanding ability to form new information highways. Self similarity is the easiest form of duplication. Leaves on a tree.
But this may be of interest in the properties of spacetime.
Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT) is a theoretical model how spacetime itselfs is created.
Causal dynamical triangulation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Beyond the Standard Model

Simulated Large Hadron Collider CMS particle detector data depicting a Higgs boson produced by colliding protons decaying into hadron jets and electrons
Standard Model
Evidence[show]
Theories[show]
Supersymmetry[show]
Quantum gravity[hide]

• String theory
• Loop quantum gravity
• Causal fermion systems
• Causal sets
• Canonical quantum gravity
• Superfluid vacuum theory

Experiments[show]

• v
• t
• e

Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves. [/quote]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

And it shows in the functional artistry of fractals in nature. Ants live there also and learn to use the most efficient way to use natures resources to survive.
One of the insects enemies is the predatory plant, which use chemically activateds hydraulic systems to "close their jaws". For something to live, something must die and that applies at all levels of life and in the abstract to reality itself, where we call it *change*.

Ants are just eminently equipped to rule the world at that lower (simpler) level of existence.
Ants have no problem in decision making, they never ask the question.

p.s. could you model a more efficient mathematical way of solving a maze to a food source than a brainless slime mold (a single celled polyp) ? The mathematics and their potentials are everywhere and are expressed at every level from the very subtle to gross expression in *our* reality.
Except for the necessary functional size restrictions, the world would be crawling with unimaginable alien monsters, intent on "bringing home the bacon".

Have you ever looked deep into the eyes of a Praying Mantis?

 

[Jeeves]

Have you ever looked deep into the eyes of a Praying Mantis?

Every chance I get. They're my favourite insect, partly because they can turn their head and look you in the eye.
The mantids do not, but I do know we're machines, but I still reject the concept of a Maker.

(PS Bert Holldobler gives better ant-lectures.)

 

[Write4U]

Every chance I get. They're my favourite insect, partly because they can turn their head and look you in the eye.
The mantids do not, but I do know we're machines, but I still reject the concept of a Maker.

As do I. A creative function does not require a motivated maker.

(PS Bert Holldobler gives better ant-lectures.)

I'll be sure to read some of his work. Thanks for the link.

 

[Write4U]

The honey bee is my favorite insect. It has discovered mutually beneficial symbiotic existence. What can be more beneficial to life on earth, than this most remarkable creature..
In fact the lowly worm has my deepest respect, it tills and fertilizes the soil which provides us with the abundance of seasonal plants which we so love in our salads.

 

[Write4U]

Again, not automatically: that's a sentient function: they make purposeful decisions about what skills need improvement, which exercise will achieve the best results,
how long, how hard, how much of their resources to commit and what to give up or leave unsatisfied.

Yes, and then they break a foot and they are no longer athletes. Natural selection.