I forgot to ask this.
According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
too slow for them, it seems.
What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.

Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
of Time?

In article <047ea5d2-d6aa-4684-9fbb-a5bc226816d9
@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk says...
> I forgot to ask this.
> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> can't (or wont) look at a movie. 

Maybe they're picky about the aspect ratio?

"Coo, coo,...the bastards, they're showing 'On The Waterfront*' in a cropped 
format!...coo, coo..."

* - can't think of any other film with pigeons in it...

-- 
Halmyre

That's you that is.

"aquachimp"  wrote in message
news:047ea5d2-d6aa-4684-9fbb-a5bc226816d9@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I forgot to ask this.
> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> too slow for them, it seems.
> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>
> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> of Time?


As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
to. And so the question of perceived duration probably wouldn't arise.

michael adams


While memories clearly play a role in an animals' conceptual model of the
world, they don't consciously reflect on the past as such. As far as is
known anyway. Similarly again AFFAIR they don't consciously anticipate
future pleasurable outcomes i.e by looking forward to tomorrow's
food.



...

On Jul 1, 7:34 pm, aquachimp 
wrote:
> I forgot to ask this.
> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> too slow for them, it seems.
> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>
> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> of Time?

I've heard this said about insects (eg flies).  Does make you wonder
if the lifespan of animals which to us seems relatively short... is
actually perceived by the animal in question as about the same length
in duration as our own. Which makes you wonder if animals which live
longer than us - turtles, tortoises etc, are maybe living mentally  in
"fast motion" perceptually. Which might explain why they appear to
move so "slowly" to us.

I disagree somewhat with your assertion that pigeons demonstrate an
ability  to fly away from fast approaching objects.

whether its the time of year  and they are distracted with building
nests, raising young or whatever, but Ive been surprised at how dumb
birds(of all species) have seemed while driving around recently.
Swooping across the road in front and barely missing my car... or
actually flying directly towards me causing me to brake.

In fact the other day I saw a pigeon misjudge one of these flits
across the road, and was promptly hit by a big 4x4... I have to say
the sound of its bones breaking was not particularly pleasant.

In article , 
aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk says...
> I forgot to ask this.
> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do.
> 
Yes, pigeons do see things differently, starting with assuming we want them to 
wake us up at 5am, cooing loudly outside and occasionally shitting on our 
cars.
-- 

Dom Robinson	  Gamertag: DVDfever      email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1174 DVDs, 375 games, 451 CDs, 114 cinema films, 54 concerts, music & news
/* gta 4, waz, sweeney todd, interstate 60, indiana jones, avp2, god of war
             New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
               Youtube - http://uk.youtube.com/user/DieHardDom

On 1 Jul, 20:12, Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here
 wrote:
> On Jul 1, 7:34 pm, aquachimp 
> wrote:
>
> > I forgot to ask this.
> > According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> > can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> > can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> > too slow for them, it seems.
> > What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> > Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> > away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>
> > Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> > days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> > slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> > make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> > of Time?
>
> I've heard this said about insects (eg flies).  Does make you wonder
> if the lifespan of animals which to us seems relatively short... is
> actually perceived by the animal in question as about the same length
> in duration as our own. Which makes you wonder if animals which live
> longer than us - turtles, tortoises etc, are maybe living mentally  in
> "fast motion" perceptually. Which might explain why they appear to
> move so "slowly" to us.
>
> I disagree somewhat with your assertion that pigeons demonstrate an
> ability  to fly away from fast approaching objects.
>
> whether its the time of year  and they are distracted with building
> nests, raising young or whatever, but Ive been surprised at how dumb
> birds(of all species) have seemed while driving around recently.
> Swooping across the road in front and barely missing my car... or
> actually flying directly towards me causing me to brake.
>
> In fact the other day I saw a pigeon misjudge one of these flits
> across the road, and was promptly hit by a big 4x4... I have to say
> the sound of its bones breaking was not particularly pleasant.

I think this is a good example of survivlal of the fittest.  I think I
see more pigeons being killed at this time of year.  I suspect that
these are young pigeons who have to learn about on-coming vehicles
quick, or perish.

aquachimp wrote:
> I forgot to ask this.
> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> too slow for them, it seems.
> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
> 
> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> of Time?

Yes, but where exactly *ARE* all the baby Pigeons? :)

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 11:34:34, aquachimp 
 wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

>What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
>Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
>away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.

There's one lying outside my house that waited until *after* the last 
second...
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 12:12:10, Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here 
 wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>
>I disagree somewhat with your assertion that pigeons demonstrate an
>ability  to fly away from fast approaching objects.
>
>whether its the time of year  and they are distracted with building
>nests, raising young or whatever, but Ive been surprised at how dumb
>birds(of all species) have seemed while driving around recently.
>Swooping across the road in front and barely missing my car... or
>actually flying directly towards me causing me to brake.
>
>In fact the other day I saw a pigeon misjudge one of these flits
>across the road, and was promptly hit by a big 4x4... I have to say
>the sound of its bones breaking was not particularly pleasant.

But at least it was quick, which is more than most of us get...
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 20:02:20, michael adams  
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
>> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
>> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
>> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
>> of Time?
>
>As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
>present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
>to.

I don't agree. Some animals store food later use - squirrels & foxes, 
for example.
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 20:42:00, Dom Robinson  
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :

>In article ,
>aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk says...
>> I forgot to ask this.
>> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do.
>>
>Yes, pigeons do see things differently, starting with assuming we want them to
>wake us up at 5am

Your pigeons sleep-in longer than the ones round here, then...

>, cooing loudly outside
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Jul 2, 10:01 am, Paul Hyett  wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 12:12:10, Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here
>  wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>
>
>
> >I disagree somewhat with your assertion that pigeons demonstrate an
> >ability  to fly away from fast approaching objects.
>
> >whether its the time of year  and they are distracted with building
> >nests, raising young or whatever, but Ive been surprised at how dumb
> >birds(of all species) have seemed while driving around recently.
> >Swooping across the road in front and barely missing my car... or
> >actually flying directly towards me causing me to brake.
>
> >In fact the other day I saw a pigeon misjudge one of these flits
> >across the road, and was promptly hit by a big 4x4... I have to say
> >the sound of its bones breaking was not particularly pleasant.
>
> But at least it was quick, which is more than most of us get...
> --
> Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

dunno.. I'd like to think it was quick.... other than the bone
breaking sound and  a puff of feathers in my rear view mirror I
couldnt see the aftermath. it could of course had just one of its
wings ripped off, and was left to die a slow agonising death by the
side of the road, while its baby pigeons  sat waiting patiently on the
nest waiting for its mum or dad to return home.... and wondering why
they'd been left to starve to death.

Watch out Bill Oddie, I'm after your job!

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:01:18 GMT, Paul Hyett
 wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 12:12:10, Insert_Clever_Pseudonym_Here 
> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>>I disagree somewhat with your assertion that pigeons demonstrate an
>>ability  to fly away from fast approaching objects.
>>
>>whether its the time of year  and they are distracted with building
>>nests, raising young or whatever, but Ive been surprised at how dumb
>>birds(of all species) have seemed while driving around recently.
>>Swooping across the road in front and barely missing my car... or
>>actually flying directly towards me causing me to brake.
>>
>>In fact the other day I saw a pigeon misjudge one of these flits
>>across the road, and was promptly hit by a big 4x4... I have to say
>>the sound of its bones breaking was not particularly pleasant.
>
>But at least it was quick, which is more than most of us get...

Can't have been any worse than watching that gamekeeper dislocating a
pigeon's wings and then pulling it outside off in one go on the F-word
last night.

"jon"  wrote in message news:g4feaf$pje$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> aquachimp wrote:
> > I forgot to ask this.
> > According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> > can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> > can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> > too slow for them, it seems.
> > What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> > Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> > away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
> >
> > Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> > days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> > slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> > make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> > of Time?
>
> Yes, but where exactly *ARE* all the baby Pigeons? :)


Pigeons grow very fast in the nest as compared with other birds being
fed with highly nutritious crop milk which is more like
cheese. Pigeons and doves are the only birds which produce this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_milk


michael adams

...

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:6Ve3$GMoOzaIFw8o@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 at 20:02:20, michael adams 
> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
> >>
> >> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> >> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> >> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> >> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> >> of Time?
> >
> >As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
> >present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
> >to.
>
> I don't agree. Some animals store food later use - squirrels & foxes,
> for example.

Yes.

But they don't positively look forward to digging it up later though, do they ?

Squirrel thinks - "I'm really looking forward to winter so I can start digging
up those nuts "

In any case squirrels dig up material - bulbs etc which they didn't even bury
themselves so its questionable whether they're actually storing rather
than simply burying nuts. Which they happen to find again as a result
of their digging habit. So the the two activities could be totally
independent.

Foxes and most carnivores don't store food. They'll immobilise i.e kill
as many moving food objects i.e prey such as chickens as are available at any
one time. They then eat or carry off what they can, and eat what's available of the
remainder in situ until it goes mouldy.


michael adams

...



> -- 
> Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

michael adams wrote:
> "jon"  wrote in message news:g4feaf$pje$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> aquachimp wrote:
>>> I forgot to ask this.
>>> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
>>> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
>>> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
>>> too slow for them, it seems.
>>> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
>>> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
>>> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>>>
>>> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
>>> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
>>> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
>>> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
>>> of Time?
>> Yes, but where exactly *ARE* all the baby Pigeons? :)
> 
> 
> Pigeons grow very fast in the nest as compared with other birds being
> fed with highly nutritious crop milk which is more like
> cheese. Pigeons and doves are the only birds which produce this.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_milk
> 
> 
> michael adams
> 
> ...
> 
Somebody get on the phone to Heather Mills, forget Rats milk, Pigeons 
milk is the way forward ;)

"jon"  wrote in message news:g4feaf$pje$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> Yes, but where exactly *ARE* all the baby Pigeons? :)


Alternative answer from the Interweb

The pigeons you see everywhere *are* the baby pigeons.

The adult has a wingspan of 8-12 feet and lives mainly in mountainous areas.


michael adams

...

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 at 10:54:55, michael adams  
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>>
>> I don't agree. Some animals store food later use - squirrels & foxes,
>> for example.
>
>Foxes and most carnivores don't store food. They'll immobilise i.e kill
>as many moving food objects i.e prey such as chickens as are available at any
>one time. They then eat or carry off what they can, and eat what's 
>available of the
>remainder in situ until it goes mouldy.
>
Arctic foxes *do* store food - IIRC the subject came up on 'The Life Of 
Mammals', or one of Attenborough's either documentaries.
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

In article ,
michael adams  wrote:
>> I don't agree. Some animals store food later use - squirrels & foxes,
>> for example.
>
>Yes.
>
>But they don't positively look forward to digging it up later though, do they ?

How do we know that?

Francis

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:SYXtsgdM$6aIFwJ0@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 at 10:54:55, michael adams 
> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
> >>
> >> I don't agree. Some animals store food later use - squirrels & foxes,
> >> for example.
> >
> >Foxes and most carnivores don't store food. They'll immobilise i.e kill
> >as many moving food objects i.e prey such as chickens as are available at any
> >one time. They then eat or carry off what they can, and eat what's
> >available of the
> >remainder in situ until it goes mouldy.
> >
> Arctic foxes *do* store food - IIRC the subject came up on 'The Life Of
> Mammals', or one of Attenborough's either documentaries.
> -- 
> Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett


Those films are clearly all faked

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/animals/mammals-animals/dogs-wolves-and-foxes/fox_arctic.html


michael adams

...

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:34:34 +0100, aquachimp  
 wrote:

> I forgot to ask this.
> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> too slow for them, it seems.
> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>
> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> of Time?

I keep wondering this when I watch Smallville, as Clark Kent can see
things happening in slow motion. If he see everything like this, then
his days must drag.

Fred X

On Jul 2, 4:46 pm, "michael adams"  wrote:
> "jon"  wrote in messagenews:g4feaf$pje$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> > Yes, but where exactly *ARE* all the baby Pigeons? :)
>
> Alternative answer from the Interweb
>
> The pigeons you see everywhere *are* the baby pigeons.
>
> The adult has a wingspan of 8-12 feet and lives mainly in mountainous areas.

lol. :-)

On 2 Jul, 19:48, "Fred X"  wrote:
 >
> I keep wondering this when I watch Smallville, as Clark Kent can see
> things happening in slow motion. If he see everything like this, then
> his days must drag.
>

There nmust be fringe benefits!

But have you ever had the experience of this, for exampple when in an
accident, or physically threatened.  I'm sure it has survival
benefits!

FC

jon wrote:
> aquachimp wrote:
>> I forgot to ask this.
>> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
>> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
>> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
>> too slow for them, it seems.
>> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
>> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
>> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>>
>> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
>> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
>> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
>> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
>> of Time?
> 
> Yes, but where exactly *ARE* all the baby Pigeons? :)

Under the motorway bridges - especially where they pass over canals, 
loads of them!

In article ,
aquachimp   wrote:
>Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
>days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
>slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
>make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
>of Time?

You might like to read a short story by H.G.Wells called
"The New Accelerator", available online at:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Accelerator

(Not the most legible of fonts I'm afraid, but the other
sites I tried had pop-up windows.)

Francis

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 at 18:42:50, michael adams  
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>> >
>> >Foxes and most carnivores don't store food. They'll immobilise i.e kill
>> >as many moving food objects i.e prey such as chickens as are 
>> >available at any
>> >one time. They then eat or carry off what they can, and eat what's
>> >available of the
>> >remainder in situ until it goes mouldy.
>> >
>> Arctic foxes *do* store food - IIRC the subject came up on 'The Life Of
>> Mammals', or one of Attenborough's either documentaries.
>
>Those films are clearly all faked
>
>http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/animals/mammals-animals
>/dogs-wolves-and-foxes/fox_arctic.html

How does the above clip support your claim?
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

Fred X wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:34:34 +0100, aquachimp
>  wrote:
>
>> I forgot to ask this.
>> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
>> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
>> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
>> too slow for them, it seems.
>> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
>> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
>> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>>
>> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are
>> their days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a
>> in slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does
>> that make each day longer for them and so does that affect their
>> perception of Time?
>
> I keep wondering this when I watch Smallville, as Clark Kent can see
> things happening in slow motion. If he see everything like this, then
> his days must drag.

No, because Kryptonians are 100% like Earthlings in every way, except they 
possess special abilities which they can switch on and off occasionally, and 
which can get transferred off them to an earthling whenever they get 
electrocuted or touch a rock with Kryptonian writing on it.

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:TPOd56OuIJbIFwQH@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 at 18:42:50, michael adams 
> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
> >> >
> >> >Foxes and most carnivores don't store food. They'll immobilise i.e kill
> >> >as many moving food objects i.e prey such as chickens as are
> >> >available at any
> >> >one time. They then eat or carry off what they can, and eat what's
> >> >available of the
> >> >remainder in situ until it goes mouldy.
> >> >
> >> Arctic foxes *do* store food - IIRC the subject came up on 'The Life Of
> >> Mammals', or one of Attenborough's either documentaries.
> >
> >Those films are clearly all faked
> >
> >http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/player/animals/mammals-animals
> >/dogs-wolves-and-foxes/fox_arctic.html
>
> How does the above clip support your claim?


Because it isn't necessary to use concepts inferring intentionality - that
the animals "do it on purpose" in order to explain such animal behaviour.

According to the "storing" hypothesis, because they realise it's maybe going
to be cold in Winter, arctic foxes decide to bury eggs in the Summer which
they can dig up in Winter. Or maybe to be a bit fairer, Arctic Foxes
with a behavioural trait of storing eggs in Summer for use in Winter
have a selective advantage in harsh winters over animals which don't.

However, and this is the point, there's no reason why the burying activity
and the digging up activity need necessarily be linked in the foxes mind
at all. As with the squirrel. Whereas they do  need to be linked if the foxes
are to be said to be actively "storing" food.

There are any number of behavioural traits which can be displayed by mammals,
some of which may be of survival value. It may well be that burying things
has a a survival value over and above storing food - hiding things from
predators, covering ones tracks etc. etc. Similarly a trait for rooting around
will have survival value when everything is covered in a foot of snow,
regardles of whether anything has been deliberately "buried" underneath.

But, the fact that such burying and rooting behaviour are both found in the same
animal, and are keys to its survival doesn't necesssarily mean that the activities
are linked in the animals mind - as being components of some overall plan
It's simply a matter of interpretation, and adding rather more layers than is
necessary to explain what's actually going on.

In Darwinian terms the same can be said of most kinds of behaviour, human
behaviour included. Ideas such as "intentionality" and "deliberation" are
simply afterthoughts grafted on to those accidental behavioural traits
which have turned out to have the most lasting survival value. Aspects of this
behaviour are then given a meaning, by being interpreted in terms of intentional
language. Animals "store" food, just like us.  Humans can be said to behave in a
"moral" or "immoral" way. Etc.,etc.



michael adams

...






> -- 
> Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:22:10 +0100, foamie  wrote:

> On 2 Jul, 19:48, "Fred X"  wrote:
>  >
>> I keep wondering this when I watch Smallville, as Clark Kent can see
>> things happening in slow motion. If he see everything like this, then
>> his days must drag.
>>
>
> There nmust be fringe benefits!
>
> But have you ever had the experience of this, for exampple when in an
> accident, or physically threatened.  I'm sure it has survival
> benefits!
>

I know people do say that everything seemed to have happened in slow motion
when they've had an accident.


Fred X

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 02:56:28 +0100, John Rowland  
 wrote:

> Fred X wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:34:34 +0100, aquachimp
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> I forgot to ask this.
>>> According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
>>> can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
>>> can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
>>> too slow for them, it seems.
>>> What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
>>> Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
>>> away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>>>
>>> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are
>>> their days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a
>>> in slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does
>>> that make each day longer for them and so does that affect their
>>> perception of Time?
>>
>> I keep wondering this when I watch Smallville, as Clark Kent can see
>> things happening in slow motion. If he see everything like this, then
>> his days must drag.
>
> No, because Kryptonians are 100% like Earthlings in every way, except  
> they
> possess special abilities which they can switch on and off occasionally,  
> and
> which can get transferred off them to an earthling whenever they get
> electrocuted or touch a rock with Kryptonian writing on it.

And when the scriptwriters begin to run out of ideas!

Fred X

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 at 09:34:53, Francis Burton  wrote 
in uk.media.tv.misc :

>In article ,
>aquachimp   wrote:
>>Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
>>days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
>>slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
>>make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
>>of Time?
>
>You might like to read a short story by H.G.Wells called
>"The New Accelerator", available online at:
>
>http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Accelerator
>
>(Not the most legible of fonts I'm afraid, but the other
>sites I tried had pop-up windows.)

I have that story in a HG Wells 'Selected Short Stories' book, which 
also includes some stories that'd give today's PC loonies a 
heart-attack... :)
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 at 09:34:53, Francis Burton  wrote 
> in uk.media.tv.misc :
> 
>> In article 
>> ,
>> aquachimp   wrote:
>>> Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
>>> days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
>>> slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
>>> make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
>>> of Time?
>>
>> You might like to read a short story by H.G.Wells called
>> "The New Accelerator", available online at:
>>
>> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_Accelerator
>>
>> (Not the most legible of fonts I'm afraid, but the other
>> sites I tried had pop-up windows.)
> 
> I have that story in a HG Wells 'Selected Short Stories' book, which 
> also includes some stories that'd give today's PC loonies a 
> heart-attack... :)

LOL - HG Wells mentioned Jihad from the East in the 1908 novel *War in 
the Air*

On Jul 1, 9:02 pm, "michael adams"  wrote:
> "aquachimp"  wrote in message
>
> news:047ea5d2-d6aa-4684-9fbb-a5bc226816d9@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I forgot to ask this.
> > According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> > can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> > can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> > too slow for them, it seems.
> > What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> > Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> > away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>
> > Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> > days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> > slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> > make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> > of Time?
>
> As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
> present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
> to. And so the question of perceived duration probably wouldn't arise.
>
> michael adams
>
> While memories clearly play a role in an animals' conceptual model of the
> world, they don't consciously reflect on the past as such. As far as is
> known anyway. Similarly again AFFAIR they don't consciously anticipate
> future pleasurable outcomes i.e by looking forward to tomorrow's
> food.
>
> ...

Hmm, most interesting.
However, isn't it said that dogs pine when, say, a human individual
has failed to return as per usual at a usual given time of day, or
even week?
Wouldn't that suggest a reflected past and expectant future?

Though I like your perpetual present theory, just how short, or long
is that present?
Like when our cats are at the door first thing in the morning waiting
for grub... and will meow on the days we're a tad later. The feeling
just happened upon them and not a deliberate expectation from sometime
earlier in the morning?

I ask, because if a pigeon has no past or future to reflect on... why
bother getting out of the way of the truck coming at them?

And surely, they must have a sense of timing to avoid been caught or
run over and as such, some grasp of time?

Someone else has implied a Darwinian, survival of the fittest type
reason for the ones that failed in the car bumper test.

But then, at times when we humans should be  solely concentrating on a
task at hand, eg driving, we are often distracted by thoughts
regarding the past or future.
How can we say that the killed pigeons weren't in fact equally
momentarily distracted by a moment of higher brain function?

And lastly, your informative summing up of where are all the baby
pigeons are promts me to wonder that if their slow-motion eye sight
demands things to move fast or they'll not notice, then might not the
reason they've evolved to raise such quich sprogs be that if they
didn't, the parent pigeon would not be able to 'see'  the offspring
developing and might inadvertantly think they were dead, or summat?

Which would suggest that parents need to 'see' some form of
development in their offspring and that in turn suggests some form of
'future' to expect, or at least measure against their present

"aquachimp"  wrote in message
news:753de64e-b214-4a6d-bfa3-83e29da8b4e6@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 1, 9:02 pm, "michael adams"  wrote:
> "aquachimp"  wrote in message
>
> news:047ea5d2-d6aa-4684-9fbb-a5bc226816d9@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I forgot to ask this.
> > According to QI, pigeons see things quite diferently to how we do. I
> > can't recall the data, but there was a question as to why pigeons
> > can't (or wont) look at a movie. The frames per second would be far
> > too slow for them, it seems.
> > What we see as fast moving, they see as being more like slow motion.
> > Which, apparantly, is why they can wait till the last second to fly
> > away from fast objects approaching, e.g. cars.
>
> > Which brings me to my question. Time being relative an' all, are their
> > days much longer. I means, if what we see as fast, they see a in
> > slower motion, does that mean they see more every day and so does that
> > make each day longer for them and so does that affect their perception
> > of Time?
>
> As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
> present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
> to. And so the question of perceived duration probably wouldn't arise.
>
> michael adams
>
> While memories clearly play a role in an animals' conceptual model of the
> world, they don't consciously reflect on the past as such. As far as is
> known anyway. Similarly again AFFAIR they don't consciously anticipate
> future pleasurable outcomes i.e by looking forward to tomorrow's
> food.
>
> ...

- Hmm, most interesting.
- However, isn't it said that dogs pine when, say, a human individual
- has failed to return as per usual at a usual given time of day, or
- even week?
- Wouldn't that suggest a reflected past and expectant future?

...

There's no need for animals to have any conception of time, of past
present and future at all. If they come to associate certain events
as occuring together, as in conditioned reflexes, then the occurrence of
one will automatically trigger expectation of the other. In this case
the dog comes to associate the owner returning with other events. If the
other events still occur while the owner fails to return then this will
break the sequence. If the owners return is also linked to other
pleasurable events - getting fed then obviously this will be seen
as more disruptive of the dogs adopted routine, and thus its mental
equilibrium.

However the dog  doesn't actively contemplate this whole sequence
of events in the abstract - in the absence of any stimulus -
which might include hunger for instance. As with your cat below.


- Though I like your perpetual present theory, just how short, or long
- is that present?


It has no duration, that's the whole point. The whole of consciousness
is bound up with the experience itself and is totally oblivious to
the passage of time.



- Like when our cats are at the door first thing in the morning waiting
- for grub... and will meow on the days we're a tad later. The feeling
- just happened upon them and not a deliberate expectation from sometime
- earlier in the morning?

See above. Your cat comes to associate being hungry with your* feeding it.
However as above, the cat doesn't actively contemplate being hungry and
then being provided something to eat.

*Just so long as you're around anyway. But if someone else moved in, I'm pretty
sure Tibbles would "adapt" soon enough. Or if they didn't co-operate he's soon
move elsewhere.

- I ask, because if a pigeon has no past or future to reflect on... why
- bother getting out of the way of the truck coming at them?


The pigeons you see around today are descendants of birds who for no
particular reason just happened to display a behavioural trait of moving
out of the way of large objects coming in their direction. They
didn't, and still don't, need any reason for doing so. All inherited
behaviour is random in that sense. Some of it just happened to have turned
be particularly beneficial in terms of survival. No other explanation
is really necessary.

This is what critics of Darwinism call Darwinists easy resort to "just so"
stories". Basically any feature of the natural world, including most human
behaviour can be explained in this way.


- But then, at times when we humans should be  solely concentrating on a
- task at hand, eg driving, we are often distracted by thoughts
- regarding the past or future.
- How can we say that the killed pigeons weren't in fact equally
- momentarily distracted by a moment of higher brain function?

Because it isn't necessary to ascribe "higher brain functions" to
pigeons, in order to explain their behaviour.

- And lastly, your informative summing up of where are all the baby
- pigeons are promts me to wonder that if their slow-motion eye sight
- demands things to move fast or they'll not notice, then might not the
- reason they've evolved to raise such quich sprogs be that if they
- didn't, the parent pigeon would not be able to 'see'  the offspring
- developing and might inadvertantly think they were dead, or summat?

Another reason pigeons grow so fast in the nest is because of the small
brood size. Maximum two, more usually one. With two adults feeding one
chick the advantages are obvious. The reason the broods are so
small to start with is because pigeons are relatively large birds.


- Which would suggest that parents need to 'see' some form of
- development in their offspring and that in turn suggests some form of
- 'future' to expect, or at least measure against their present


I can't really follow that argument. All I can say is that any serious
suggestion that pigeons can contemplate the future is doomed to failure,
I'm afraid.



michael adams

...

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 10:02:14, michael adams  
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>
>The pigeons you see around today are descendants of birds who for no
>particular reason just happened to display a behavioural trait of moving
>out of the way of large objects coming in their direction.

No particular reason - other than avoiding predators, surely?
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:e5d+EKYip6bIFwCD@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 10:02:14, michael adams 
> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
> >
> >The pigeons you see around today are descendants of birds who for no
> >particular reason just happened to display a behavioural trait of moving
> >out of the way of large objects coming in their direction.
>
> No particular reason - other than avoiding predators, surely?


That's simply your own post-hoc interpretation.

Pigeons themselves don't actually know what predators are.

That's the whole point about animal behaviour. All such behaviour is
essentially meaningless and without any purpose. It's only real
significance, is when in specific circumstances, it can be seen to
bestow a selective advantage an a particular species, and is thus
passed on to succeeding generations

But just as pigeons don't recognise the concept of predators
neither do they deliberately act in such as way as to ensure
the survival of their species. All such outcomes are purely
accidental, the unintended consequences of totally random
( but as it turns out) beneficial behavioural traits passed on
through successive generations of birds.

This is what Darwinism is essentially about.



michael adams

...








> -- 
> Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 19:55:55, michael adams  
wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>
>"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
>news:e5d+EKYip6bIFwCD@blueyonder.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 10:02:14, michael adams 
>> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
>> >
>> >The pigeons you see around today are descendants of birds who for no
>> >particular reason just happened to display a behavioural trait of moving
>> >out of the way of large objects coming in their direction.
>>
>> No particular reason - other than avoiding predators, surely?
>
>That's simply your own post-hoc interpretation.
>
>Pigeons themselves don't actually know what predators are.
>
>That's the whole point about animal behaviour. All such behaviour is
>essentially meaningless and without any purpose. It's only real
>significance, is when in specific circumstances, it can be seen to
>bestow a selective advantage an a particular species, and is thus
>passed on to succeeding generations
>
>But just as pigeons don't recognise the concept of predators
>neither do they deliberately act in such as way as to ensure
>the survival of their species. All such outcomes are purely
>accidental, the unintended consequences of totally random
>( but as it turns out) beneficial behavioural traits passed on
>through successive generations of birds.
>
>This is what Darwinism is essentially about.
>
But how does it apply to creatures who have an understanding of such 
matters?
-- 
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

In article ,
michael adams  wrote:
>As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
>present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
>to. And so the question of perceived duration probably wouldn't arise.
>
>michael adams
>
>
>While memories clearly play a role in an animals' conceptual model of the
>world, they don't consciously reflect on the past as such. As far as is
>known anyway. Similarly again AFFAIR they don't consciously anticipate
>future pleasurable outcomes i.e by looking forward to tomorrow's
>food.

Does this viewpoint preclude animals having any form of mental
imagery (thoughts or images of things or events not currently being
experienced)?

Francis

"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
news:YD8famG6EHcIFwIO@blueyonder.co.uk...
> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 19:55:55, michael adams 
> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
> >
> >"Paul Hyett"  wrote in message
> >news:e5d+EKYip6bIFwCD@blueyonder.co.uk...
> >> On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 at 10:02:14, michael adams 
> >> wrote in uk.media.tv.misc :
> >> >
> >> >The pigeons you see around today are descendants of birds who for no
> >> >particular reason just happened to display a behavioural trait of moving
> >> >out of the way of large objects coming in their direction.
> >>
> >> No particular reason - other than avoiding predators, surely?
> >
> >That's simply your own post-hoc interpretation.
> >
> >Pigeons themselves don't actually know what predators are.
> >
> >That's the whole point about animal behaviour. All such behaviour is
> >essentially meaningless and without any purpose. It's only real
> >significance, is when in specific circumstances, it can be seen to
> >bestow a selective advantage an a particular species, and is thus
> >passed on to succeeding generations
> >
> >But just as pigeons don't recognise the concept of predators
> >neither do they deliberately act in such as way as to ensure
> >the survival of their species. All such outcomes are purely
> >accidental, the unintended consequences of totally random
> >( but as it turns out) beneficial behavioural traits passed on
> >through successive generations of birds.
> >
> >This is what Darwinism is essentially about.
> >
> But how does it apply to creatures who have an understanding of such
> matters?


By which I assume you mean humans.

They don't "understand" anything. Nor neeed to.

That's all post-hoc rationalistion to "explain" actions which have already
been decided on, at a sub-conscious or neurological level.


michael adams

...




> -- 
> Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

"Francis Burton"  wrote in message news:1215371248.61772@irys.nyx.net...
> In article ,
> michael adams  wrote:
> >As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
> >present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
> >to. And so the question of perceived duration probably wouldn't arise.
> >
> >michael adams
> >
> >
> >While memories clearly play a role in an animals' conceptual model of the
> >world, they don't consciously reflect on the past as such. As far as is
> >known anyway. Similarly again AFFAIR they don't consciously anticipate
> >future pleasurable outcomes i.e by looking forward to tomorrow's
> >food.
>
> Does this viewpoint preclude animals having any form of mental
> imagery (thoughts or images of things or events not currently being
> experienced)?
>
> Francis


No. As explained in my other post actual experiences such as hunger pangs
can bring forth associated ideas such as the prospect of being fed by the
owner. Nobody is claiming animals don't associate ideas in this way,
only that such ideas need an outside stimulus. This is what's meant
by saying that animals live solely in the present. Everything they
think about, is determined by what's happening to them right now.
Rather than being things they decide to think about for themselves.



michael adams

...

On 7 Jul, 09:59, "michael adams"  wrote:
> "Francis Burton"  wrote in messagenews:1215371248.61772@irys.nyx.net...
> > In article ,
> > michael adams  wrote:
> > >As far as is known most animals are believed to live in the perpetual
> > >present with neither a past to reflect on* nor a future to look forward
> > >to. And so the question of perceived duration probably wouldn't arise.
>
> > >michael adams
>
> > >While memories clearly play a role in an animals' conceptual model of the
> > >world, they don't consciously reflect on the past as such. As far as is
> > >known anyway. Similarly again AFFAIR they don't consciously anticipate
> > >future pleasurable outcomes i.e by looking forward to tomorrow's
> > >food.
>
> > Does this viewpoint preclude animals having any form of mental
> > imagery (thoughts or images of things or events not currently being
> > experienced)?
>
> > Francis
>
> No. As explained in my other post actual experiences such as hunger pangs
> can bring forth associated ideas such as the prospect of being fed by the
> owner. Nobody is claiming animals don't associate ideas in this way,
> only that such ideas need an outside stimulus. This is what's meant
> by saying that animals live solely in the present. Everything they
> think about, is determined by what's happening to them right now.
> Rather than being things they decide to think about for themselves.
>
> michael adams
>
> ...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I tend to agree, but my dog, when it realises that I am going to lie
down, will come upstairs, jump on the bed, then when I'm stretched
out, go downstairs for its chew, bring it upstairs and use it for its
intended purpose.

It appears as if it's checking out that I am going to sleep, then
deliberately going to where it knows where its chew is and bringing it
up.  It all seems premeditated, though I'm sure the Skinnerians would
be able to explain it otherwise.

Talking of Skinner and to go back to the pigeon theme, the Americans,
I believe, tried to use pigeons to guide missiles by teaching them to
peck at a spot on a screen, presumably centred on a particular
target.  Does anyone know if this worked, or failed, perhaps because
of the low refresh rate of the video used?

FC