8 ms·

I find it we are anthropomorphizing when we say: Non human animal x or y can "count their own eggs" or "assess numbers" Animals can surely assess and "feel" qu

I find it we are anthropomorphizing when we say: Non human animal x or y can "count their own eggs" or "assess numbers" Animals can surely assess and "feel" quantities via the senses and via their own automatic body reactions (hormones etc...). As well as have many pre-programmed quantities in their genome. But a "number" is purely an abstract concept. I don't think we can ever be sure an animal is actually "counting" things. Instead from what we know about how fear, excitement, etc is regulated via hormones it seems fairly probable that they are simply seeing, hearing, touching and this triggers a feeling that guides them to a certain behavior (through hormone secretion).

BucketsMcG 6y ago
I saw my dog reasoning the other day. Unfortunately he's been to the vet rather too often in his life. It's in the neighbourhood, so if we're out and he thinks I'm taking him there, he starts to think about ways to avoid it, and pulls me along alternative routes. Every walk's a negotiation between me and his determination to avoid the vet. Anyway, he got attacked on Monday and I had to take him to get stitched up. This made him extra wary of having to go there again, and it resulted in him trying to drag me along a path he has never walked down in his life, because it's a) through a kids' playground and b) a dead end. But he THOUGHT it would take him away from danger. So yeah, you can say he was responding to hormones if you like, I'm sure that's true. But he was acting on a hunch, or a hope, not on knowledge.
- Stratoscope 6y ago
  Our dog Brownie suffered a major back injury last December that left her hind legs paralyzed. We took her to Scout's House in San Mateo, CA for several months of physical therapy. This is a pretty wonderful place; if you ever need PT for your dog and you live on the SF Peninsula, I highly recommend them. So does Brownie. After the first few visits she had the route memorized. When I turned off 101 and onto the city streets, she got more excited at each turn as we approached their parking lot. She's made an amazing recovery. Here's how she was doing in March: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGAf3oo6Jc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGAf3oo6Jc And even better since then: now she runs and chases squirrels in the yard. She's still a little wobbly, but I can see why she was so excited about her visits to Scout's House.
wiredfool 6y ago
Dogs can reliably count to the number of treats they usually get at once.
- glaberficken 6y ago
  How do you know the dog is counting the treats Vs "hmm that feels like less good stuff than I'm used to getting".
  - wiredfool 6y ago
    It's clear to pretty much any pet owner that "I'm usually fed about now" is something that they think. Most treat oriented dogs will happily take an extra treat, and keep looking for them if there's a potentially indeterminate number. My experience is that for small treats, 1/2 sized treats are just as good as ones that you haven't split. It's not like you're feeding the dog, you're treating it to reward/train. This is often with high value treats like bits of lunch meat that's ripped up to give them. (This is like a couple of grams for a 20kg dog, a snap and a gulp and it's gone.) If the dog is used to getting 2 treats after an activity, that's what they'll wait for. If they're used to one treat after coming in, that's what they'll wait for. If you, for some horrific reason, don't have the usual number of treats at the right time, you will be hounded for them. If you split them so that there are the right number but a smaller overall quantity, They're fine with it. My experience is: * Dogs now how many treats they get for a specific context, including that there might be a long string of them. * Within reason, it's the number of actions rather than the volume. * Be very careful what actions you're actually rewarding. Dogs are pretty smart. I'd be surprised if the smarter ones aren't on the verge of tool use. (collie pups are scary smart. greyhounds on the other hand.... not so much) (source, dog fosterer, ~15 in the last couple years. )
    - glaberficken 6y ago
      That the behavior you describe is learned and stimulated by treats seems to be highly indicative it is a conditioned reflex and not a cognitive ability. Would genuinely love for someone to point out a reputable scientific paper that goes into this and actually draws some conclusive evidence.
learnstats2 6y ago
I find it human-exceptionalising when we say that non-human animals can't have a concept of number. Why wouldn't they? In evolutionary terms, we followed the same path to get here.
- disown 6y ago
  > Why wouldn't they? In evolutionary terms, we followed the same path to get here. Then why can't I fly? We know that language had a role in our ability to count. Most primitive societies with limited language only counted 1 or 2 and everything else was "many". It's why many languages have a "half" and a systematic one-thirds, one-fourth, one-fifth, etc. If we had "numbers" and the ability to count, we'd say "one-twos" rather than half. This is true for most cultures/languages. Also, if you think animals grasp the concept of number, do you think they have the ability to understand negative numbers?
maze-le 6y ago
Yes, a number is pureley abstract. It is even more abstract than the form of representation in a theory of mind. It doesn't really matter if it is communicated via hard wired instinct, hormone signalling or language / reason -- both can encode the same concept: If it quacks like mastering countability and swims like mastering countability than it is probable to assume the ability to count. The ontological question if both representations of the concept of a number are truly equal is not really important if we can show equivalent outcomes.
- glaberficken 6y ago
  Well, I was inclined to agree, but: when we say "count" and "number" we usually mean something very precise and accurate. Such as: "how many oranges are there on the table?". As opposed to when we we ask stuff like: "how many oranges do you think there are on that orange tree?" "You have lived by that tree your entire life, do you feel like it is carrying more oranges than in past years?" My point is that these 2 activities are clearly different, and that non-humans clearly engage in the last one but I'm not so sure I have ever seen clear evidence they engage in the first one.
  - maze-le 6y ago
    I guess you are right, it is important to differentiate a pure number (one, five, ten thousand) from a fuzzy category of numbers (a bunch, a pack of wolves, some dozen eggs). But, apparently, some animals have the ability to count exact numbers, such as apes: * https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=numera https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewconte... or bees (OK, only to 5, but still): * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004218302384 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900421... In these cases I would say -- even if they don't have the ability to tell us that they can reason with exact numbers -- we can observe experimentally that they do. And I don't see any reason to assume that the abstraction that is represented in the animal mind is fundamentally different from our notion of it. EDIT: That could also be an indication for mathematical Platonism, when I think about it. But alas, as long as we don't observe a species that develops mathematics from the basic forms of countability that would be a stretch too far... Or to put it differently -- if there is a species that could reasons about numbers beyond the basics of counting, given enough time they would also be able to axiomatize mathematics under an equivalent of ZFC Set theory.
darkerside 6y ago
I agree this is likely. In the ants example, I would expect a certain amount of pheromone to be the trigger, not an actual number of ants. And this could be demonstrated by introducing pheromone without additional ants (a trivial example) or observing differences dependent on, for example, weather conditions impacting pheromone detectability and therefore colony behavior, while obviously not impacting the number of ants.

BucketsMcG 6y ago

I saw my dog reasoning the other day. Unfortunately he's been to the vet rather too often in his life. It's in the neighbourhood, so if we're out and he thinks I'm taking him there, he starts to think about ways to avoid it, and pulls me along alternative routes. Every walk's a negotiation between me and his determination to avoid the vet. Anyway, he got attacked on Monday and I had to take him to get stitched up. This made him extra wary of having to go there again, and it resulted in him trying to drag me along a path he has never walked down in his life, because it's a) through a kids' playground and b) a dead end. But he THOUGHT it would take him away from danger. So yeah, you can say he was responding to hormones if you like, I'm sure that's true. But he was acting on a hunch, or a hope, not on knowledge.

Stratoscope 6y ago
Our dog Brownie suffered a major back injury last December that left her hind legs paralyzed. We took her to Scout's House in San Mateo, CA for several months of physical therapy. This is a pretty wonderful place; if you ever need PT for your dog and you live on the SF Peninsula, I highly recommend them. So does Brownie. After the first few visits she had the route memorized. When I turned off 101 and onto the city streets, she got more excited at each turn as we approached their parking lot. She's made an amazing recovery. Here's how she was doing in March: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGAf3oo6Jc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGAf3oo6Jc And even better since then: now she runs and chases squirrels in the yard. She's still a little wobbly, but I can see why she was so excited about her visits to Scout's House.

wiredfool 6y ago

Dogs can reliably count to the number of treats they usually get at once.

glaberficken 6y ago
How do you know the dog is counting the treats Vs "hmm that feels like less good stuff than I'm used to getting".
- wiredfool 6y ago
  It's clear to pretty much any pet owner that "I'm usually fed about now" is something that they think. Most treat oriented dogs will happily take an extra treat, and keep looking for them if there's a potentially indeterminate number. My experience is that for small treats, 1/2 sized treats are just as good as ones that you haven't split. It's not like you're feeding the dog, you're treating it to reward/train. This is often with high value treats like bits of lunch meat that's ripped up to give them. (This is like a couple of grams for a 20kg dog, a snap and a gulp and it's gone.) If the dog is used to getting 2 treats after an activity, that's what they'll wait for. If they're used to one treat after coming in, that's what they'll wait for. If you, for some horrific reason, don't have the usual number of treats at the right time, you will be hounded for them. If you split them so that there are the right number but a smaller overall quantity, They're fine with it. My experience is: * Dogs now how many treats they get for a specific context, including that there might be a long string of them. * Within reason, it's the number of actions rather than the volume. * Be very careful what actions you're actually rewarding. Dogs are pretty smart. I'd be surprised if the smarter ones aren't on the verge of tool use. (collie pups are scary smart. greyhounds on the other hand.... not so much) (source, dog fosterer, ~15 in the last couple years. )
  - glaberficken 6y ago
    That the behavior you describe is learned and stimulated by treats seems to be highly indicative it is a conditioned reflex and not a cognitive ability. Would genuinely love for someone to point out a reputable scientific paper that goes into this and actually draws some conclusive evidence.

learnstats2 6y ago

I find it human-exceptionalising when we say that non-human animals can't have a concept of number. Why wouldn't they? In evolutionary terms, we followed the same path to get here.

disown 6y ago
> Why wouldn't they? In evolutionary terms, we followed the same path to get here. Then why can't I fly? We know that language had a role in our ability to count. Most primitive societies with limited language only counted 1 or 2 and everything else was "many". It's why many languages have a "half" and a systematic one-thirds, one-fourth, one-fifth, etc. If we had "numbers" and the ability to count, we'd say "one-twos" rather than half. This is true for most cultures/languages. Also, if you think animals grasp the concept of number, do you think they have the ability to understand negative numbers?

maze-le 6y ago

Yes, a number is pureley abstract. It is even more abstract than the form of representation in a theory of mind. It doesn't really matter if it is communicated via hard wired instinct, hormone signalling or language / reason -- both can encode the same concept: If it quacks like mastering countability and swims like mastering countability than it is probable to assume the ability to count. The ontological question if both representations of the concept of a number are truly equal is not really important if we can show equivalent outcomes.

glaberficken 6y ago
Well, I was inclined to agree, but: when we say "count" and "number" we usually mean something very precise and accurate. Such as: "how many oranges are there on the table?". As opposed to when we we ask stuff like: "how many oranges do you think there are on that orange tree?" "You have lived by that tree your entire life, do you feel like it is carrying more oranges than in past years?" My point is that these 2 activities are clearly different, and that non-humans clearly engage in the last one but I'm not so sure I have ever seen clear evidence they engage in the first one.
- maze-le 6y ago
  I guess you are right, it is important to differentiate a pure number (one, five, ten thousand) from a fuzzy category of numbers (a bunch, a pack of wolves, some dozen eggs). But, apparently, some animals have the ability to count exact numbers, such as apes: * https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=numera https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewconte... or bees (OK, only to 5, but still): * https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004218302384 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S258900421... In these cases I would say -- even if they don't have the ability to tell us that they can reason with exact numbers -- we can observe experimentally that they do. And I don't see any reason to assume that the abstraction that is represented in the animal mind is fundamentally different from our notion of it. EDIT: That could also be an indication for mathematical Platonism, when I think about it. But alas, as long as we don't observe a species that develops mathematics from the basic forms of countability that would be a stretch too far... Or to put it differently -- if there is a species that could reasons about numbers beyond the basics of counting, given enough time they would also be able to axiomatize mathematics under an equivalent of ZFC Set theory.

darkerside 6y ago

I agree this is likely. In the ants example, I would expect a certain amount of pheromone to be the trigger, not an actual number of ants. And this could be demonstrated by introducing pheromone without additional ants (a trivial example) or observing differences dependent on, for example, weather conditions impacting pheromone detectability and therefore colony behavior, while obviously not impacting the number of ants.