Take a decision like moving house. When bees want to move their hive, they swarm. When other bees notice a swarm starting, they have to make a decision to swarm or not to swarm too. If enough bees to set up a new colony swarm, they’ll pack up and move and set up a new hive. But if they don’t reach critical mass (or if humans intervene and keep the queen at home) they won’t be able to make a new hive, so they stop swarming. In this way, the biggest decision a beehive typically faces looks an awful lot like a political rally in a democracy.
I find the assumption that if something can be explained, then it cannot be free will or intelligence, to be baffling. My only explanation is that most people think intelligence is magic, and cannot be explained through logic and science. A preposterous proposition, for a psychologist can explain human decision making with the same scientific precision.
Take a decision like moving house. When bees want to move their hive, they swarm. When other bees notice a swarm starting, they have to make a decision to swarm or not to swarm too. If enough bees to set up a new colony swarm, they’ll pack up and move and set up a new hive. But if they don’t reach critical mass (or if humans intervene and keep the queen at home) they won’t be able to make a new hive, so they stop swarming. In this way, the biggest decision a beehive typically faces looks an awful lot like a political rally in a democracy.
Concentrations of pheromones explains your question. It is not a decision as a consequence of chemical attractance.
I find the assumption that if something can be explained, then it cannot be free will or intelligence, to be baffling. My only explanation is that most people think intelligence is magic, and cannot be explained through logic and science. A preposterous proposition, for a psychologist can explain human decision making with the same scientific precision.