from"a history of science"

A deer passing through the forest scents the ground and detects a certain odor. A sequence of ideas is generated in the mind of the deer. Nothing in the deer's experience can produce that odor but a wolf; therefore the scientific inference is drawn that wolves have passed that way. But it is a part of the deer's scientific knowledge, based on previous experience, individual and racial; that wolves are dangerous beasts, and so, combining direct observation in the present with the application of a general principle based on past experience, the deer reaches the very logical conclusion that it may wisely turn about and run in another direction. All this implies, essentially, a comprehension and use of scientific principles; and, strange as it seems to speak of a deer as possessing scientific knowledge, yet there is really no absurdity in the statement. The deer does possess scientific knowledge; knowledge differing in degree only, not in kind, from the knowledge of a Newton. Nor is the animal, within the range of its intelligence, less logical, less scientific in the application of that knowledge, than is the man.

The animal that could not make accurate scientific observations of its surroundings, and deduce accurate scientific conclusions from them, would soon pay the penalty of its lack of logic.


Cheers
Iseason

Iseason

And even more fabulous

What - how is the deer able to run away - from where and how can such signals be generated - we are dealing with all kind of feed back mechanisms that is starting deeper down - that can initialize signals that initialize behavior - so in order for anything to show anything there must be a constant feed back at all levels ranging from simple superficial learned or in-build mechanisms to very deep feed backs that change the deer permanently in its future behavior.

Everything is so excessively complex, and calculated in notime or in imaginary time.