zozo
Member
Well the question who told the fish that schooling in numbers is safer stays rather an enigma.. What is it? Is it a hidden genetical intelligence or do they indeed percieve their surrounding and dangers with a consiousness and tell eachother "Lets number up then we seem bigger and have more survival chance". For many years scientists have doubted this and only measured intelligence by brain size and called it just instinct. Performed certain tests and with the results concluded they must be rather stupid. Still if it is instinct it has to come from somewhere. Then there still must be a rather intelligent consious perception of invironment to experimentally learn and make the conclusion this is safer and the other is not.. Isn't it?
I can't get over this with my way of binary thinking connecting dots. Something just doesn't add up here.. It might be pure chance that fish actualy school for a very other reason and there once where also fish not doing that, these are the ones which didn't make it and only the schooling varieties survived the tooth of time till now.
I realy do not know, but i rather believe that humans are so fond about them selfs and their own invention called intelligence and their so called pattent on reasoning in which we like to rule and own the world are much to proud to give something like a tiny fish a reasonable consiousnes.
Read a few biology books for example botanica after all this is a botanic forum.. You find it in all of them no matter what the subject is at least i did and i can give a small anecdote about what very often is writen by scientists i bet you have red some of statements like this too. It is in this case about an author writing a description of a carnivorious plant the Pinguicula. This one catches insects with it's sticky leaves.. Now the author/scientist wrote "This plant grows a very long flower stem because it prevents the polinating insects from getting caught on his leaves." The matter a fact he's actualy making the statement the plants is doing this because of that, so the plant most have an intelligent consious perception of it's surroundings or else it could never have done this in the first place. Now giving a plant this property is rather hillarious, it has no eyes no nose nor ears and not even braintissue. I'm still bafled that a botanist/scientist writes something like this and be serious about it in an informative and educative descritpion about a plant. I'm sorry i realy have no idea and doubt his intelligents and ask myself what school did this poor chap go to.
And if it's true then a fish must be rather one hell of a smart bugger..
Who or what is taking us for a ride here?
I can't get over this with my way of binary thinking connecting dots. Something just doesn't add up here.. It might be pure chance that fish actualy school for a very other reason and there once where also fish not doing that, these are the ones which didn't make it and only the schooling varieties survived the tooth of time till now.
I realy do not know, but i rather believe that humans are so fond about them selfs and their own invention called intelligence and their so called pattent on reasoning in which we like to rule and own the world are much to proud to give something like a tiny fish a reasonable consiousnes.
Read a few biology books for example botanica after all this is a botanic forum.. You find it in all of them no matter what the subject is at least i did and i can give a small anecdote about what very often is writen by scientists i bet you have red some of statements like this too. It is in this case about an author writing a description of a carnivorious plant the Pinguicula. This one catches insects with it's sticky leaves.. Now the author/scientist wrote "This plant grows a very long flower stem because it prevents the polinating insects from getting caught on his leaves." The matter a fact he's actualy making the statement the plants is doing this because of that, so the plant most have an intelligent consious perception of it's surroundings or else it could never have done this in the first place. Now giving a plant this property is rather hillarious, it has no eyes no nose nor ears and not even braintissue. I'm still bafled that a botanist/scientist writes something like this and be serious about it in an informative and educative descritpion about a plant. I'm sorry i realy have no idea and doubt his intelligents and ask myself what school did this poor chap go to.
And if it's true then a fish must be rather one hell of a smart bugger..
Who or what is taking us for a ride here?