tiny brained bees solve a complex mathematical problem

[bcbm]

thanks maldoror


Scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London and Queen Mary, University of London have discovered that bees learn to fly the shortest possible route between flowers even if they discover the flowers in a different order. Bees are effectively solving the 'Travelling Salesman Problem', and these are the first animals found to do this.

continued (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101025090020.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily% 3A+Latest+Science+News%29&utm_content=Twitter)

[Ravachol]

I was linked to this article as well, it's amazing. There is actually an algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bees_algorithm) based on this behavior. Then again, ant colonies have some pretty interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization) 'techniques' (if you can call them that) as well. All related to the field of 'swarm intelligence'.

Shit's fucking efficient as well, gotta love those little buggers (pun intended!)

Also:

ozkBd2p2piU

[Quail]

How awesome. I did that kind of stuff in A level. Bees could have done my A level discreet maths module!

[Amphictyonis]

I was linked to this article as well, it's amazing. There is actually an algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bees_algorithm) based on this behavior. Then again, ant colonies have some pretty interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization) 'techniques' (if you can call them that) as well. All related to the field of 'swarm intelligence'.

Shit's fucking efficient as well, gotta love those little buggers (pun intended!)

Also:

ozkBd2p2piU

That same series shows how ants democratically choose where to locate their nests. I'll try to find the clip and post it.

[razboz]

Yeah there's a bunch of little and big behaviours in ants that are quite cool. Decision-making, for example, is not hierarchical. This vision of ants as top-down monarchists, stems from us anthropomorphising them. But ants seem to learn to do things, like how Argentine ant colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony#Unicoloniality_and_supercolonies) federated to fight the endemic European fire ant (http://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6075.abstract)s. Which we can call adapted competitive behaviours, or the formation what is effectively an ant Federation, and possibly even a common learned military strategy.

I find it annoyingly restrictive that a human can commit suicide, but the best an animal will ever aspire to is anomalous behaviour, or a long term strategy for species survival. Zoology and many other fields of biology are crippled by not being able to apply standards to humans and non-humans, but then lumping many animals together like bees and ants and dolphins, who for all we know act on fundamentally different principles to each other. I think we get to a point where the term culture almost applies, but we insist on calling it shared behaviour. And when we're faced with resistance (im thinking of you Orcas) we call it bad behaviour and put the fuckers down. But we insist on claiming that culture isn't genetic, it's learnt and that you need to think like a person to be an insurgent. But learning culture is probably genetic, and fighting the things that make you suffer is something a lot of us are on this forum for... The whole thing frustrates me.

[Ravachol]

Yeah there's a bunch of little and big behaviours in ants that are quite cool. Decision-making, for example, is not hierarchical. This vision of ants as top-down monarchists, stems from us anthropomorphising them. But ants seem to learn to do things, like how Argentine ant colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony#Unicoloniality_and_supercolonies) federated to fight the endemic European fire ant (http://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6075.abstract)s. Which we can call adapted competitive behaviours, or the formation what is effectively an ant Federation, and possibly even a common learned military strategy.

I find it annoyingly restrictive that a human can commit suicide, but the best an animal will ever aspire to is anomalous behaviour, or a long term strategy for species survival. Zoology and many other fields of biology are crippled by not being able to apply standards to humans and non-humans, but then lumping many animals together like bees and ants and dolphins, who for all we know act on fundamentally different principles to each other. I think we get to a point where the term culture almost applies, but we insist on calling it shared behaviour. And when we're faced with resistance (im thinking of you Orcas) we call it bad behaviour and put the fuckers down. But we insist on claiming that culture isn't genetic, it's learnt and that you need to think like a person to be an insurgent. But learning culture is probably genetic, and fighting the things that make you suffer is something a lot of us are on this forum for... The whole thing frustrates me.

While I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part of your post (considering culture and genetics aren't related, culture is the product of the reproduction of social institutions and discours. The culture=genetics argument is something more at place in 19th century pseudo-biology or fascist rethoric I think) the thing about the ants was amazing. I knew ants had complex social structures but this is mind blowing bro.

[WeAreReborn]

I was linked to this article as well, it's amazing. There is actually an algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bees_algorithm) based on this behavior. Then again, ant colonies have some pretty interesting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant_colony_optimization) 'techniques' (if you can call them that) as well. All related to the field of 'swarm intelligence'.

Shit's fucking efficient as well, gotta love those little buggers (pun intended!)

Also:

ozkBd2p2piU

That's awesome, only negative part is that they destroyed the colony and killed all the ants but cool nevertheless. If ants can work collectively and great such a wonder without a leader so can we! :lol:

[razboz]

While I'm not sure what you mean by the latter part of your post (considering culture and genetics aren't related, culture is the product of the reproduction of social institutions and discours. The culture=genetics argument is something more at place in 19th century pseudo-biology or fascist rethoric I think) the thing about the ants was amazing. I knew ants had complex social structures but this is mind blowing bro.

I said learning culture is genetic. Like, we are set up at birth to learn the practices of culture, and all the behaviours associated with it. I was trying to highlight the fact that the Sciences use different languages to talk about humans and animals. We accept that humans aren't hardwired into culture, but reject that many animals are not either. Animals are, we seem accept, built into their behaviours (or the other way round), while humans are somehow freer than other animals because, well, we came up with the word free and we don't like competition so why should any other animals get to use the concept. Words and concepts have always been used like this to divide the world as the ruling group sees fit.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I said learning culture is genetic. Like, we are set up at birth to learn the practices of culture, and all the behaviours associated with it. I was trying to highlight the fact that the Sciences use different languages to talk about humans and animals. We accept that humans aren't hardwired into culture, but reject that many animals are not either. Animals are, we seem accept, built into their behaviours (or the other way round), while humans are somehow freer than other animals because, well, we came up with the word free and we don't like competition so why should any other animals get to use the concept. Words and concepts have always been used like this to divide the world as the ruling group sees fit.

We're talking about a distributed intelligence that communicates chemically. I don't think you can meaningfully apply human concepts like "culture" to such an entity.

Even more closely related animals such as chimps live in a completely different environment in the wild. Our largely self-created environment is awash with cultural artefacts to a degree that chimps have never displayed.

[Ravachol]

We're talking about a distributed intelligence that communicates chemically. I don't think you can meaningfully apply human concepts like "culture" to such an entity.


That reductionist reasoning can be applied to humans as well. After all, culture propagates through communication which is nothing but the transmitting of information (stored neurochemically) in encoded form to another human only to be processed neurochemically again. Thus culture can be seen as the transmission of a similar set of neurochemical processes.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That reductionist reasoning can be applied to humans as well. After all, culture propagates through communication which is nothing but the transmitting of information (stored neurochemically) in encoded form to another human only to be processed neurochemically again. Thus culture can be seen as the transmission of a similar set of neurochemical processes.

Don't be stupid, I specifically stipulated communication, not storage (but even then, humans have extra-somatic non-chemical information storage). What was the last book written by ants that you read? How many websites have ants set up?

I don't see what reductionism has to do with it, apart from being used as a swear word by trendy post-modernists who think they're on an intellectual level with scientists (they're not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair))

[Vanguard1917]

We're talking about a distributed intelligence that communicates chemically. I don't think you can meaningfully apply human concepts like "culture" to such an entity.

Yes. Culture is the product of consciousness, the possession of which sets us apart from the animal kingdom. As Charlie pointed out,

"A spider conducts operations that resemble those of a weaver, and a bee puts to shame many an architect in the construction of her cells. But what distinguishes the worst architect from the best of bees is this, that the architect raises his structure in imagination before he erects it in reality."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch07.htm

[Ravachol]

Don't be stupid, I specifically stipulated communication, not storage (but even then, humans have extra-somatic non-chemical information storage). What was the last book written by ants that you read? How many websites have ants set up?


Where have I said that ants and humans have the same level of intelligence? I don't recall saying that, I merely said that your definition of 'culture' is lacking.



I don't see what reductionism has to do with it, apart from being used as a swear word by trendy post-modernists who think they're on an intellectual level with scientists (they're not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair))

First of all, 'scientist' is a pretty broad word which covers anything from mathematicians to economists and sociologists. We all know the latter mainly reproduce a discourse rather than observing and analysing 'hard facts'. Saying something is 'right' because this or that 'scientist' said it is not only an authority argument it's also rather unscientific.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Where have I said that ants and humans have the same level of intelligence? I don't recall saying that, I merely said that your definition of 'culture' is lacking.

It's not just about intelligence; a colony of ants or bees could have just as many if not more braincells in the aggregrate - what is important is how that intelligence manifests itself.

There is a lot more to culture than just a handful of characteristics; birds may sing, but they don't produce albums. Chimps may tell stories, but they don't weave fictional epics.


First of all, 'scientist' is a pretty broad word which covers anything from mathematicians to economists and sociologists. We all know the latter mainly reproduce a discourse rather than observing and analysing 'hard facts'. Saying something is 'right' because this or that 'scientist' said it is not only an authority argument it's also rather unscientific.

Relevance? That is not an attitude I encourage; a single scientist or team can be wrong, or lying, or faking the data for a paycheque. But postmodernism goes too far by claiming that science as a whole is no more "truthful" than any other discourse, which is clearly bollocks.