Bats
Monday, October 26, 2009 9:02:09 PM
The 2nd chapter is all about the echolocation system of bats, actually. It is quite interesting, but it needs some background in biology and physics. Bats, as you probably know, use echos to get to know their surroundings and chase prey. The method they use is what we call the Doppler-effect, meaning outgoing waves return at a higher or lower frequency if the object is moving respectively towards or away from you. So, bats have this enormously complicated system for seeing their surroundings, don't you think?
There is a catch to that question. You see, humans make use of light waves to visualise their surroundings. This way of perception is quite normal to us, so we do it without really thinking about it or doing much effort. We see our surroundings in our own way, we have been accustomed by nature. The thing is, bats have been around for a very long time too, so nature has given them the perfect combination of body aspects to use echolocation. In other words, they use it just as easily as we use our sight. If you think of it, it sounds quite assumable right?

Now, Dawkins goes a little further in this. He takes a step I am eager to follow. He says: "It is possible that the same feeling I experience when I see a flamingo is felt by a bat detecting the flamingo using echolocation."
Whait, what? Is he just saying that echolocation can produce the sensation of colour? He actually is, but not in a way you would expect. He basically says there can be patterns on the wings of those flamingos, which are perceived by echolocation and not by sight. Imagine, bats actually seeing the same things as we are, but in a completely different way! Can you see the world by using echolocation?
There is a part just after that which is quite memorable. He imagines a congress of fully blind bat-like creatures, using echolocation as their primary perception, telling each other about a strange species that has learnt to "see", thus making lightwaves, something the batlike don't use at all, "hearable". They just can't believe a simple creature as men could do that. They imagine lightwaves as "complicated echos".
The big mistake they make here in imagining the possibilities of lightwaves, is that they try to translate the phenomenon to something they can understand, sound, completely disregarding that it's something completely, fundamentally different.
That is just the way we look at bats and other creatures. I hope you see now, that there are different ways of seeing things and we shouldn't take one as better than the other. Their way of perception doesn't fail, our way doesn't fail, they just are fundamentally different and always will be.
Now, the question I've been asking myself is of bigger importance: do elephants think? Or maybe I should ask the question in a different way: in what way do elephants think? Because maybe they do think and we can't understand their way of thinking because it's fundamentally different. Maybe we, as humans, should stop placing ourselves on the very top of nature, thinking we're better than anything, any animal. Maybe we should start to really investigate animals to see how their minds work and how they think. I do really believe that animals, especially the ones with bigger brains, have minds. I, for me, hope it gets proven in my lifetime.














der WandersmannderWandersmann # Tuesday, October 27, 2009 3:47:20 PM
So, I say "Of COURSE higher animals think! You can see them do it, you can see the results of their thinking. Have you never heard of Alex, tha Australian Grey? Have you read Do Cats Think? or The Intelligence of Dogs?" whilst the rationalist will respond with the usual physical-science "instinct" answers ... they are biological machines and not capable of thought.
The point being that I NEED to believe that animals think, and the other NEEDS to believe that they don't. So, no matter what sort of question you have, or what sort and amount of "proof" you can muster, the question is not capable of definitive answer to someone unalterably opposed to that answer.
Jacco BesselingFingolfin7001 # Tuesday, October 27, 2009 4:05:17 PM
der WandersmannderWandersmann # Tuesday, October 27, 2009 5:55:16 PM
Youl Nevrguesyoulnevrgues # Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:38:08 PM
What does "wet" feel like?
What is a sad sound?
What resembles passion or hate?
Try it sometime.
Jacco BesselingFingolfin7001 # Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:55:23 PM
Thanks for the comment!
Youl Nevrguesyoulnevrgues # Wednesday, October 28, 2009 1:10:54 AM
Something as simple as "imagining" what the 5th or 6th dimensions are like.
Comprehending that light is composed of waves and particles.
Gravity as a fabric that exists within itself as long as there is more than one object. (I fudged the wording, but I hope you get my idea.)
My personal favorite, "the" moment time started. Started from where? in where? Was there a where? Where could "where" be if there was nowhere where "where" could exist?
der WandersmannderWandersmann # Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:50:47 AM
—Gertrude Stein
"There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer."
—Gertude Stein (again)
der WandersmannderWandersmann # Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:53:16 AM
No way to know, really.
Youl Nevrguesyoulnevrgues # Wednesday, October 28, 2009 3:17:22 AM
I can say, it smells soft and sweet with a slight twinge if you smell it too close. But you have think, what is the other person's hardwired interpretation of soft, sweet and twinge.
Image two blind individuals trying to describe a wall's texture. Expand that to you and I for example. You are blind to me, and me to you. How do I know your interpretation of crumbly is compared to mine?
It is a long shot, but I equate this to describing Time as a long line of events going in either direction. I do not see it that way. Time is a word to define a snap shot of something existing from moment a to moment b.
We have to take it on our flexible existence that what one interprets as truth is also truth to ourselves.
*** I have no idea what I just wrote. It made sense as I was writing it, but now I am not sure. ***
Jacco BesselingFingolfin7001 # Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:53:41 AM
The way from the outside to the picture in your brain is a very long way. Let's take the chocolate-example: the taste is in some molecules in the chocolate. These molecules are "sensed" by taste papilles (or whatever it's called) on the tongue, of which everyone has a different number. These papilles send an electrical current to your brain, so a completely different thing then a "taste". This current arrives in the brain, the brain sees those currents and translates it back into taste.
Because of the variables (number of papilles, strength of electrical current, brain's ability to translate electricity back in taste), the chances are big that someone else has a (slightly) different sensation then you when they eat chocolate (or anything else of course).
It is not possible to know what another's hardwired intepretation of crumbly is indeed. Then you have to go really far in describing crumbly itself in great detail first, and all the terms associated with it. That is a philosophical concept too, but at the moment I don't know who stated it.
Youl Nevrguesyoulnevrgues # Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:16:39 PM
Robrobellett # Saturday, November 14, 2009 12:39:00 PM
There's some truth to this, as our personal reality is just our perception, and we all have our filters that colour our perception, our preconceived beliefs, personal histories, motivations etc.
So even if we look at the flamingo with human eyes, what we all 'see' is different, and thus comparing our visual perception to a bat's perception thus has some parallels.