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.
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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
Wow, NatGeo's site is terrible right now. Full screen unskippable autoplaying video that starts off unmuted. It then had at least one of the same type that was unmuted on the actual page, so upon page load it just sounded like a total cacophony of videos. Totally unusable site.
I run uMatrix with a small amount of allowable filters. I have no problem with ads generally, so if I must I will open FireFox where I don't run such things, but also don't log into anything personal.
>She climbed onto the cylinder and rocked it until it tipped over, giving her access to the sweet treat.
>“That was something we hadn’t predicted,” and indeed, had designed against, says study leader Lauren Stanton, a Ph.D. student at the University of Wyoming.
They should have consulted me for this experiment. Growing up in the suburbs, I have extensive experience in observing the little bastards topple or otherwise gain access to all manner of receptacle—no matter how seemingly impregnable—on inumerable occasions. Their cunning knows no bounds.
To me that base did not seem like it was designed that way. If it had been the base would be much bigger in area so that far more force would have been required to tip it. Any structural engineers want to take a look?
I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems like they designed it to not tip over by itself or with the added weight of a raccoon, but they neglected to consider said raccoon in motion.
Raccoons, black bears, and skunks are all smarter than many people seem to think. They can find their way into most anything in common use. There have been cars broken into by bears, for example.
Finding their way out seems more challenging for them based on my anecdotal evidence of finding a very pissed raccoon stuck in my trashcan after the lid closed on him.
So very, very true. This is not the right forum for telling my story of the garbage purloining skunk who got his head stuck in a peanut butter jar.
You know the adage about how a skunk won't spray in an enclosed area, so that you can throw a blanket over a skunk and not worry about being sprayed? It's a lie. Mr. Skunk does not care.
For Firefox: About:Config setting media.autoplay.enabled to false.
For Chrome: Chrome://flags set autoplay policy to "Document user activation is required".
I know that this breaks animated .gifs in Firefox, though you can get them to animate by viewing the image info (right-click menu). That's rarely a big loss anyway.
With uMatrix I was able to read the article without loading any of the external cruft, it does add some cognitive overhead to browsing sites with a lot of external dependencies
35 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 83.8 ms ] thread:P
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?
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.
Understanding is not a binary thing, as demonstrated by Clifford Stoll's 'Why is the sky blue?' question.
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.
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.
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.
>“That was something we hadn’t predicted,” and indeed, had designed against, says study leader Lauren Stanton, a Ph.D. student at the University of Wyoming.
They should have consulted me for this experiment. Growing up in the suburbs, I have extensive experience in observing the little bastards topple or otherwise gain access to all manner of receptacle—no matter how seemingly impregnable—on inumerable occasions. Their cunning knows no bounds.
You know the adage about how a skunk won't spray in an enclosed area, so that you can throw a blanket over a skunk and not worry about being sprayed? It's a lie. Mr. Skunk does not care.
- mute the sound - prevent autoplaying - prevent video download consume my internet quota.
For Chrome: Chrome://flags set autoplay policy to "Document user activation is required".
I know that this breaks animated .gifs in Firefox, though you can get them to animate by viewing the image info (right-click menu). That's rarely a big loss anyway.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13230904