3 ms·

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 the

• 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.
      • mannykannot 9y ago
        Your determination to make the point that this experiment does demonstrate some level of understanding seems to have led you into thinking that any discussion of how deep that understanding goes is counterproductive, for some reason. When, however, you asked "what more is there to understanding?", the answer is that in this case, there could be more than that which the experiment actually demonstrates, but it will take further experiments to determine whether that is so. While you may not be interested in this question, the biologists performing these experiments certainly should be (and I am sure they are.) There is also the distinct possibility of this experiment being misunderstood by those with a casual interest in biology and/or cognitive science - just because our understanding of the experiment involves buoyancy and displacement, it does not follow that the raccoons' does.
        • naasking 9y ago
          > When, however, you asked "what more is there to understanding?", the answer is that in this case, there could be more than that which the experiment actually demonstrates, but it will take further experiments to determine whether that is so. You could interpret my question very broadly, but it seems clear from context that I was asking why one would need to set the threshold for qualifying as "understanding" higher than the simple causal reasoning the experiment demonstrated. The most fundamental question is about the minimum unit of understanding and how to test for that, and everything above that bar would simply be more elaborate chains built from these simple units. This seems to be what the OP I responded to was asking about, and he seemed to want to set that threshold too high IMO.
      • baddox 9y ago
        I don’t think it is. If you show a raccoon that putting rocks into a took yields a marshmallow, you cannot include anything about the raccoon’s understanding of water displacement. If you show a raccoon that pressing a button yields a marshmallow, you can’t conclude anything about the raccoon’s understanding of electronics.
        • naasking 9y ago
          "Understanding water displacement" is not the goal of the test.