5 ms·

It’s interesting that the test involves showing the animals how to use the rocks to raise the marshmallow. Not to insult any particular species, but that seems

by baddox 9y ago

It’s interesting that the test involves showing the animals how to use the rocks to raise the marshmallow. Not to insult any particular species, but that seems more like a test of the instinct to mimic behavior with some desirable outcome. I assumed the Aesop’s Fable test was testing for an apparent understand of water displacement and floating.

SomewhatLikely 9y ago
I think that's why they also do the test with floating and sinking balls to see if they discard the lighter balls.
has2k1 9y ago
For this particular case, are you accusing the raccoons of just merely adapting positive outcome superstitions?
- Mtinie 9y ago
  Right now, somewhere in the world, a raccoon is posting a comment on the raccoon-equivalent of the web lamenting the fact that ignorant members of her species have fallen into a cargo cult mentality. :P
- baddox 9y ago
  I don’t know exactly what you mean by that. I’m just claiming that, from the initial experiment, you can’t conclude anything about the raccoon’s understanding of buoyancy or water displacement.
naasking 9y ago
> Not to insult any particular species, but that seems more like a test of the instinct to mimic behavior with some desirable outcome. I assumed the Aesop’s Fable test was testing for an apparent understand of water displacement and floating. How is that not understanding? They associate the outcome with a cause, and so realize how to trigger that cause themselves to achieve the outcome. What more is there to understanding?
- mannykannot 9y ago
  There are various levels of understanding. One could simply remember that pebbles falling into the tube was followed by getting a treat, then there is the level that gets the significance of the presence of water and the buoyancy of the treats.
- baddox 9y ago
  As a simple example, take the water out of the tube. Do the animals continue dumping rocks on top of the marshmallow, since that process used to work, or do they appear to understand that it was the water in the tube that made the rock-dropping process work?
  - naasking 9y ago
    > As a simple example, take the water out of the tube. Do the animals continue dumping rocks on top of the marshmallow, since that process used to work, or do they appear to understand that it was the water in the tube that made the rock-dropping process work? All you're doing is adding more variables which makes the causal relationship more complicated, it doesn't diminish the understanding of the original causal relationship.
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      These variables were there from the beginning; the question is whether the raccoon's model of the world was taking them all into account, a question which probably requires more experiments to answer. Understanding is not a binary thing, as demonstrated by Clifford Stoll's 'Why is the sky blue?' question.
      - naasking 9y ago
        > These variables were there from the beginning But not observable given the experiment's configuration. I don't see how bringing these into the discussion clarifies anything. The question the experiment addresses is whether there is any understanding, 0 or not 0. The degree of understanding is out of scope.

by baddox 9y ago

SomewhatLikely 9y ago

I think that's why they also do the test with floating and sinking balls to see if they discard the lighter balls.

has2k1 9y ago

For this particular case, are you accusing the raccoons of just merely adapting positive outcome superstitions?

Mtinie 9y ago
Right now, somewhere in the world, a raccoon is posting a comment on the raccoon-equivalent of the web lamenting the fact that ignorant members of her species have fallen into a cargo cult mentality. :P
baddox 9y ago
I don’t know exactly what you mean by that. I’m just claiming that, from the initial experiment, you can’t conclude anything about the raccoon’s understanding of buoyancy or water displacement.

naasking 9y ago

> Not to insult any particular species, but that seems more like a test of the instinct to mimic behavior with some desirable outcome. I assumed the Aesop’s Fable test was testing for an apparent understand of water displacement and floating. How is that not understanding? They associate the outcome with a cause, and so realize how to trigger that cause themselves to achieve the outcome. What more is there to understanding?

mannykannot 9y ago
There are various levels of understanding. One could simply remember that pebbles falling into the tube was followed by getting a treat, then there is the level that gets the significance of the presence of water and the buoyancy of the treats.
baddox 9y ago
As a simple example, take the water out of the tube. Do the animals continue dumping rocks on top of the marshmallow, since that process used to work, or do they appear to understand that it was the water in the tube that made the rock-dropping process work?
- naasking 9y ago
  > As a simple example, take the water out of the tube. Do the animals continue dumping rocks on top of the marshmallow, since that process used to work, or do they appear to understand that it was the water in the tube that made the rock-dropping process work? All you're doing is adding more variables which makes the causal relationship more complicated, it doesn't diminish the understanding of the original causal relationship.
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    These variables were there from the beginning; the question is whether the raccoon's model of the world was taking them all into account, a question which probably requires more experiments to answer. Understanding is not a binary thing, as demonstrated by Clifford Stoll's 'Why is the sky blue?' question.
    - naasking 9y ago
      > These variables were there from the beginning But not observable given the experiment's configuration. I don't see how bringing these into the discussion clarifies anything. The question the experiment addresses is whether there is any understanding, 0 or not 0. The degree of understanding is out of scope.