5 ms·

> migration routes that animals know How do you know they "know" them? > all of these things can be encoded as chemical signalling Why do you presume they ar

> migration routes that animals know How do you know they "know" them? > all of these things can be encoded as chemical signalling Why do you presume they are chemical signals? > pattern matching Psychedelics show the absurd power of layered pattern matching in our brains and what happens when you disrupt those mechanisms. I would not discount it so readily.

Supermancho 2y ago
> How do you know they "know" them? It's a statistical guess, as with most phenomena. When individuals, alone, consistently travel toward direction without observable prompting, it's expected there is another stimuli. This may be an unseen force (birds following magnetic fields). However, it appears there is a genetic component. https://archive.is/vt6rU#selection-797.2-797.236 https://archive.is/vt6rU#selection-797.2-797.236 Notably: "They also inherit from their parents the directions in which they need to fly in the autumn and spring, and if the parents each have different genetically encoded directions, their offspring will end up with an intermediate direction."
- akira2501 2y ago
  > It's expected there is another stimuli Yes, and your link then identifies it: > They have at least three different compasses at their disposal: one allows them to extract information from the position of the sun in the sky, another uses the patterns of the stars at night, and the third is based on Earth’s ever present magnetic field. They clearly do not "know" paths anymore than water "knows" what gravity is.
  - int_19h 2y ago
    Having a compass is one thing, but that only gives you the overall direction, not the specific path to follow.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > They clearly do not "know" paths anymore than water "knows" what gravity is. The link identifies it as genetic. If there were no genetic component, there would be consistency, regardless of genetic lineage. > They clearly do not "know" paths anymore than water "knows" what gravity is. Knowing is a soft term, for which I provided a definition to answer a second order question. Diving into any further classification of "knowing", is a separate issue. The topic under discussion is not definitional knowing for other organisms. The topic is the genetic transfer of information, as per this article. Hence, graciously, it can be assumed that "knowing" is shorthand for this concept.
madaxe_again 2y ago
Yeah, there’s fundamental stuff that animals just don't know. Like cats have the instinct to hunt, and are good at that - but unless they’ve seen another cat eating prey, they don’t realise that that’s a thing that they can do, and you’d think that would be a pretty core learning to pass on.

Supermancho 2y ago

> How do you know they "know" them? It's a statistical guess, as with most phenomena. When individuals, alone, consistently travel toward direction without observable prompting, it's expected there is another stimuli. This may be an unseen force (birds following magnetic fields). However, it appears there is a genetic component. https://archive.is/vt6rU#selection-797.2-797.236 https://archive.is/vt6rU#selection-797.2-797.236 Notably: "They also inherit from their parents the directions in which they need to fly in the autumn and spring, and if the parents each have different genetically encoded directions, their offspring will end up with an intermediate direction."

akira2501 2y ago
> It's expected there is another stimuli Yes, and your link then identifies it: > They have at least three different compasses at their disposal: one allows them to extract information from the position of the sun in the sky, another uses the patterns of the stars at night, and the third is based on Earth’s ever present magnetic field. They clearly do not "know" paths anymore than water "knows" what gravity is.
- int_19h 2y ago
  Having a compass is one thing, but that only gives you the overall direction, not the specific path to follow.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > They clearly do not "know" paths anymore than water "knows" what gravity is. The link identifies it as genetic. If there were no genetic component, there would be consistency, regardless of genetic lineage. > They clearly do not "know" paths anymore than water "knows" what gravity is. Knowing is a soft term, for which I provided a definition to answer a second order question. Diving into any further classification of "knowing", is a separate issue. The topic under discussion is not definitional knowing for other organisms. The topic is the genetic transfer of information, as per this article. Hence, graciously, it can be assumed that "knowing" is shorthand for this concept.

madaxe_again 2y ago

Yeah, there’s fundamental stuff that animals just don't know. Like cats have the instinct to hunt, and are good at that - but unless they’ve seen another cat eating prey, they don’t realise that that’s a thing that they can do, and you’d think that would be a pretty core learning to pass on.