Research Program / Claims / biological-integrity-6

Predators do not attack prey when satiated, prey do not fear satiated predators, and danger boundaries are clear.

猎食者饱腹时不会攻击猎物，猎物也不惧怕饱腹的猎食者，危险界定清晰。

Concept biological integrity · Domain Belief Dynamics and Mind–Body Regulation · testable prediction · interface 3/3 · testability 3/3 · status contradicted

This program treats the Seth Material as a source of hypotheses, not as doctrine to be validated. Lead dossiers are AI-compiled from the corpus with a book-and-session citation after every statement; literature reviews are AI web-search summaries whose references were all DOI-verified against Crossref; the agenda draft is an AI synthesis. None of it is Seth's original text, and none of it represents scientific consensus. English fields are machine-translated; the Chinese text is authoritative.

Seth sources (book §session)
Adjudicating experiment
This directly tests supplementary question 1: select 3 predator–prey combinations, each with about 30 independent predators and 120 prey, comparing hungry, partially sated, fully sated, and no-predator conditions; separate visual and chemical cues, standardize predator diet to control prey alarm substances. Blindly measure escape distance, hiding, freezing, feeding, and predator attack attempts over 6–12 months. Pre-register equivalence bounds to test whether the sated condition truly approaches the no-predator baseline rather than merely failing to reach significance.
Suggested paper title
Predator Satiation and Prey Risk Assessment: A Pre-Registered Multispecies Test
What it would overturn
If the absolute version holds universally, it would overturn the behavioral ecology assumption that attack behavior can be decoupled from immediate feeding needs and that prey risk assessment involves uncertainty.
Candidate labs / funders
Aneesh P. H. Bose — 动物行为生态学; Lund University, Department of Biology — 水生捕食者化学线索与行为生态研究
Specificity of Seth's formulation
It has clear absolute predictions: after satiation, attack is zero and prey fear drops to the no-risk baseline; this is stronger than typical probabilistic risk-assessment models and more easily falsifiable.
Note
Overall judgment of contradicted does not erase local support; direct animal experiments exist, but reduced activity is only a defensive behavior indicator and cannot directly read subjective fear.
Evidence (2, DOI-verified via Crossref)
  • Surplus killing by carnivores — Hans Kruuk (1972), Journal of Zoology
    过量猎杀表明攻击、杀死和即时摄食并非严格绑定，反驳把食物需求满足等同于绝对不再攻击的普遍规律。[论文](https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1972.tb04087.x)
  • Responses of Acilius sulcatus (Coleoptera: Dytiscidae) to chemical cues from perch (Perca fluviatilis) — Kajsa Åbjörnsson, Bálint M. A. Wagner, Anna Axelsson, Rickard Bjerselius, K. Håkan Olsén (1997), Oecologia
    龙虱在特定能见度条件下对饥饿鲈鱼化学线索降低活动，对饱腹鲈鱼线索无此反应，直接支持一个物种和情境受限的弱版本。[论文](https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050221)

Cite: Future Mind Institute, Seth Material Research Agenda, claim biological-integrity-6, https://www.seth.org.cn/en/research/claims/biological-integrity-6