*!* Ants speak *!*

Greetings, Trumble

Sorry, i do not have enough knowledge to answer or argue with your question..

But simple logic, one can say that if they can't speak, then how do they communicate with each other? Think about it, you may notice that there is in fact a community among them.

We have done this before, but this is just more info.

Peace..

.

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Hardly. It's paradigmatic Qur'anic sciento-tosh. Ants neither 'speak' (unless you agree that lions or dogs, say, also 'speak') nor 'understand' as both require cognitive abilities, such as conciousness, which they do not have.

Interpreted as science, the Qur'an would be disagreeing with modern science if it suggested ants are capable of formulating complex concepts such as "enter your dwellings, lest Suleiman and his hosts crush you, while they perceive not", as they are not. It is painfully obvious that the verse has nothing whatsoever to do with real-life insect communication and everything to do with being an illustrative anthropomorphic fable, in which context the verse makes perfect sense.

BTW, haven't we done this one before?

thanks for that - it was fascinating.

"even if the queen did have the intelligence to send chemical messages to send chemical messages through this whole network of chambers to tell the ants outside what to do there's no way that such messages could make it in time to see the shifts in the allocations of workers that we actually see outside the nest. so that's one way we know that the queen isn't directing the behavior of the colony."

i'm not a scientist but a question came to me from the above - isn't it possible that ants could be using a method of communication that we don't know how to measure and so know nothing about? how could that possibility be ruled out in order to make a statement like that above?
we are, after all, limited by our sensory perceptions, aren't we?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

I suppose it depends how you use the word. If ants 'speak' (and it makes no difference at all whether that is chemical or aural in this context) then so do most other animals I can think of. In which case what is supposed to be so remarkable here? Nobody claims that Aesop's fables "agree with modern science" because they contain talking animals!

To speak is a special case of communicating, not a synonym for any form of it. It implies the specific communication of thoughts using a language. In turn, a language in this context is rather more than a repertoire of different noises which generate pre-programmed responses. The essential point, though, is that about complex concepts. Nobody would dispute that ants communicate, they clearly do. What they do not do is communicate complex concepts in the way people do as they cannot think to formulate such concepts.

So the movies lied to me?

You forgot:

Ant talk - ants may use acoustic signal for urgent communications

ANTS RAISE FUNGAL CROPS, HERD aphids, and wage war, all of which requires effident communication. Entomologists know that ants relay information to one another with chemicals called pheromones. But the chemical grapevine may not be the preferred medium for urgent communication, says acoustical engineer Robert Hickling of the University of Mississippi. His experiments with fire ants suggest that the ant hot line for distress or danger may be acoustic.

It's well known that ants generate faint sounds by rubbing a small appendage called a gaster up and down over ridges on their backs, and that other ants detect those vibrations with their sensitive bodies. (Ants have no ears. But there has not been enough research into the role these signals play in ant behavior, says Bradleigh Vinson, an entomologist at Texas A&M familiar with Hickling's work. "Bob's behavioral observations have certainly stirred up interest," says Vinson, "especially because his acoustic equipment is so sensitive."

Hickling has been studying ways to control fire ants--an aggressive South American species, accidently introduced into this country, that has spread throughout the South. One day, out of sheer curiosity, he inserted a small microphone into a fire ant mound and listened. "It wasn't activity sounds that we heard--you know, ants running up and down," says Hickling. "Instead we heard agitated stridulation--scraping--like a general alarm. Immediately they attacked the probe."

Hickling placed some of the ants in a plastic box with acoustic sensors on the bottom to measure the frequency of their noises. At the same time, he monitored the ants with a video camera. At first, he says, "they were pretty quiet." Then he put a caterpillar into their box. The ants put gaster to ridges for a long low-frequency signal, then set upon their prey This "attack" call, says Hickling, was similar to the "alarm" that had sounded when the probe penetrated the mound.

Later, when one ant got an antenna caught between the wall and the lid of the box, Hickling says, "I could actually see it moving its gaster up and down, and the sound matched the video image." Other ants quickly freed their nest-mate. Hickling concludes that the trapped ant had put out a distress signal and that the other ants had responded.

Although Hickling can't be sure the ants in any of his experiments weren't emitting pheromones as well, he points out that it would make sense for them to favor acoustic communication when time is of the essence. "Because sound is faster than pheromone molecules diffusing through the air," he says, "the ants may rely on it in urgent situations."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...17/ai_18471033

Listen to this sound of an ant attacking a caterpillar.( press here )

I can't press it and I wanted to hear it.

JazakiAllahu khair Khayal nice article, keep it up. *ahem* read ma sig inshaAllah*ahem*

AsalamuAlaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

format_quote Originally Posted by Happy

I can't press it and I wanted to hear it.

JazakiAllahu khair Khayal nice article, keep it up. *ahem* read ma sig inshaAllah*ahem*

AsalamuAlaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuh.

I know, you can't hear it, this function is not working any more,
Sooo, you can just pick a couple of ants and put them to your ear...and listen to whatever you want..

format_quote Originally Posted by tetsujin

It's a good question, it's actually one that every biologist asks him/herself before conducting any study.

The only way to find out is to eliminate the possible forms of communication that are plausible, and if all of them are eliminated then you move on to other methods.

All communication can be broken down into simple steps

For sentient beings, there is a Sender who (considering the Receiver) chooses a message, encodes the message, chooses the channel for transmission, and the Receiver decodes the message. Any responses or feedback follows the same process with roles reversed.

For lower lever communication, one or processes may be predetermined; for example, instinctual responses to fear and anger result in physical and/or chemical changes that are transmited by a channel such as the smell of urea, the raising of hair, blood rushing to the skin, production of pheromones. In such cases, teh sender may not have a direct control over the selection of the message, encoding, or transmission.

How many different forms of communication can you think of?

Verbal/oral/Sounds/Vibrations - we can group these together
Emitting light, sign lianguage, dancing, demonstrations, etc... we can group these together
Anything which we cannot see or hear may be picked up in other ways so long as there is an energy signal distinct from background noise along probably sections of the electromagnetic spectrum. This goes back to the vibrations in the first section
So if those aren't being used, we have chemical production and reception.
Notice how none of these require any direct physical contact, but a proximity for another

If direct contact is required, then we can directly observe it.
When all else fails, we then move on to other systems.


All the best wishes,


Faysal

thanks for your reply.
maybe this is a stupid question or i'm not asking it correctly.
is it possible that there are methods of communication that are beyond our ability to sense and measure? isn't it possible that such things could exist but we are unable to imagine them because they are totally outside of our experience?
obviously they could not be recognized on a scientific level if we lack even the imagination to conceive them, but this doesn't mean that it isn't possible that they exist.
even with all our technology we are limited to what we can conceive of in the first place.

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs

thanks for your reply.
maybe this is a stupid question or i'm not asking it correctly.
is it possible that there are methods of communication that are beyond our ability to sense and measure? isn't it possible that such things could exist but we are unable to imagine them because they are totally outside of our experience?
obviously they could not be recognized on a scientific level if we lack even the imagination to conceive them, but this doesn't mean that it isn't possible that they exist.
even with all our technology we are limited to what we can conceive of in the first place.

I know the question wasn't opposed to me, but i do believe the world of the jihns/devils. Is far beyond our imaginations(or science gadjets) but their excistense is a fact!

format_quote Originally Posted by raOnar

I know the question wasn't opposed to me, but i do believe the world of the jihns/devils. Is far beyond our imaginations(or science gadjets) but their excistense is a fact!

A fact?

Really?

fact (făkt) pronunciation
n.

1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
1. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
2. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
3. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.


Anyone care to provide some evidence?




Okay I know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but I thought I'd share this funny article. The DVDs are for sale as well I believe, not one of my high priorities but definitely on the list.

The Great Tantrik Challenge

"Om lingalingalinalinga, kilikili…."


All the best wishes,


Faysal

format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs

thanks for your reply.
maybe this is a stupid question or i'm not asking it correctly.
is it possible that there are methods of communication that are beyond our ability to sense and measure? isn't it possible that such things could exist but we are unable to imagine them because they are totally outside of our experience?
obviously they could not be recognized on a scientific level if we lack even the imagination to conceive them, but this doesn't mean that it isn't possible that they exist.
even with all our technology we are limited to what we can conceive of in the first place.

Yes, it is.

The thing to note is that you look for the most probably forms of communication based on the environment. If you have a hypothesis, you can test it, as in the cases provided in the video I posted. if it data doesn't fit, you move on to other possible channels.

Alternative means of communicating that we have no way of sensing or measuring would be indistinguishable from ESP or other psychic claims.

We can still find out if there is an undetected psychic communication simply by setting up the tests and systematically ruling out all the forms of communications that we can sense and measure.

At the end, you will know that you don't know something, and even that is valuable in science.

Edit: So on a scientific level, one could say that there is something that exists which we cannot explain or imagine right now, but it doesn't fit any of our current theories or observations.

All the best wishes,


Faysal