[FRIAM] Experimental dissociation of goal and function

Sat Aug 8 13:27:31 EDT 2020

Eric, 

Unbelievable!  In fact, I didn’t believe it until I read it and found that they had thought of some objections to their conclusions that I had not thought of.  Still, even thought I am an ethologist, and thoroughly familiar with the deep stupidity that underlies many intelligent adaptative behaviors, I still cannot imagine that my house cat would be much deterred from mouse-catching by painting little eyes on the butts of the mice.  Oh God is that a study for some undergraduates in an honors project!  Probably wouldn’t pass APA muster. 

I am not completely  satisfied that the example fits the goal/function paradigm unless further spelled out.  Seeing an eye is a cue to being seen, right?  So the goal in a stalk is not to see an eye, but the function is not to be seen?  I guess that works.  Ah that’s  another example of the epiphenomenator relation we are exploring: the cue/cue to relation.  

I am in danger sowing confusion in this discussion by my own equivocation on “function”.  I fear I have used it to refer to two things that need to be kept separate.  The first is that by which a thing has been selected.  In this case, avoidance of eyes by cats has been selected by the avoidance of fruitless attacks.  The second usage to which I may have put the word is “that for which a structure or behavior has been designed.”  This is revealed by the comparative method, in this case, the relation between eyespots and predators that you point to across species.  Eyespots are designed to ward off visual predators.  Now, Darwin’s theory of natural selection asserts that these things “should” be the same, i.e., that that which selects the behavior or structure should be that for which it is designed.  That’s why Darwin’ theory is fairly called a theory of natural design.  But Darwin’s theory is just a theory, and we should keep them straight  conceptually.  The problem is that “that by which selected” and “that for which designed” are such ungainly expressions that it’s really convenient to call them both “function” and be done with it.  I suppose we could call them function-S and function-D and declare that Function-S is the cause of-function-D.  I that might avoid confusion with biologists, but then we have the whole confusion induced by any use of the word “function”around mathematicians and software engineers, whose patronage we would not like to discourage. 

Nick  

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Eric Charles
Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 10:34 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: [FRIAM] Experimental dissociation of goal and function

This is a great study, and relevant to one of the ongoing FRIAM discussions.

Recall, the first assertion is that "goal" of a given behavior and the (evolutionary) "function" of the behavior differentiate, when investigated experimentally. You determine the goal of a behavior by manipulating the environment and seeing how the animal-in-question responds. You determine the (evolutionary) function of the of the behavior by manipulating the environment and seeing how it affects the reproductive outcomes (or some reasonable proxy thereof). 

There is then a second assertion, which is that the animals striving for the given goal achieve the identified function because various properties of the environment happen to co-occur. For example, having the goal to remove broken egg shells from around the nest, serves the function of reducing predation upon babies, because the gull happens to live in a world where predators are attracted to areas with shiney white objects near them. 

With all that in mind, check out this great study: 

“None of the 683 painted “eye-cows” were killed by ambush predators during the four-year study, while 15 (of 835) unpainted and 4 (of 543) cross-painted cattle were killed.”   

https://theconversation.com/lions-are-less-likely-to-attack-cattle-with-eyes-painted-on-their-backsides-142488

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200808/499b2cc8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 468975 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200808/499b2cc8/attachment-0001.png>