|
Steve Johnson wrote: I'm sorry if this is off topic. I saw many
articles
over the last couple of weeks that animals escaped the tsunami unaffected due to some internal warning system that they apparently possess. Does anyone know what it is? Hi Steve,
Actually, this is right on topic because it spotlights some of the
very reasons why reductionism is so prevalent in human approaches to the world
and it also spotlights the repercussions of that habit-pattern.
Human beings tend to assume that our senses come via our
organs associated with those senses: ears/hearing, eyes/seeing, tongue/tasting,
nose/smelling, skin/touch and we also tend to further assume that animals with
those same organs have the same senses, in the same general mode, and the same
limitations we perceive ourselves as having. We talk about so-called oddities
like dolphins and sonar or bats and echo-location, or snakes and infrared/heat
sense ability...
This is the kind of thing I was getting at when I asked (way back,
on the list) why there was so little research into things like how come
women who live together find that their menstrual cycles are entraining to be in
synch. Science "knows" (has tested and proven to its own satisfaction) that
the human body produces pheromones and that we can somehow detect and react to
those pheromones in each other. But there seems to be an assumption that this is
"only a sexual thing". Frankly, I would dispute that's all it is, but I also
think they are completely missing the point! As organisms, we have more
ways of interacting with our environment than our "sensory organs" represent and
our sensory organs actually sense more than the one thing they are always
associated with, as well. We can sense our orientation in space in relation to
our planet (which way is "up") with our ears, among other means. We can sense a
great deal more with our skin than just touch or pain or pleasure: there's also
temperature, sound vibrations, movement of air, wetness, electricity... the list
goes on.
But that's just the beginning. Why would we assume that we don't
have capabilities beyond the obvious? I think it's because we use the obvious to
verify everything else. The scientific method dictates; "Accept nothing as
existing until it is verified via our own senses." That's Descartes, again. We
don't trust our own perceptions unless we can verify things, using
technology, with the obvious five senses. We need a printout or a clicking noise
or some smell... The mind has a tendency to take over from the body and decide
it knows better, which then lets a lot of capability atrophy. On top of that,
the mind also tends to get into habit patterns which limit us even
further.
Most animals are not hobbled by this. They are using all sensory
capability available to them and just "going with it" rather than pooh-poohing
it and telling themselves they're just imagining it or whatever. Indeed, if
we have already "verified" that bats can echolocate and snakes can "sense
body heat in the air"... why should that be the limit of their
capabilities? It kind of blows my mind that people are even surprised that
animals survived this tsunami without our help and technological
warnings!
Judith
|