Comments on: Evolving causal belief

By: korax

korax — Sun, 31 May 2009 19:48:42 +0000

Please see:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(08)00225-X
Chimpanzees infer the location of a reward on the basis of the effect of its weight
____________
The results of this experiment could arguable refute the statement “only human primates understand the causal and intentional relations that hold among external entities.”

By: Gransee

Gransee — Fri, 29 May 2009 18:45:38 +0000

Interesting article Vaughan. I have been reading your blog for over a year now but this is the first time I have posted to it.
I understand belief as a scale on how self evident a particular bit of knowledge is.
Knowledge that is more readily agreed by the maximum number of minimally qualified observers could be thought of as requiring less belief.
It could be that compared to other animals we have a greater capacity for imagining and keeping track of hidden elements. This is essential in our ability to see cause and effect among more widely seperated observable phenomena.
The more belief required, the greater the risk but there can also be greater reward. Also, with practice, we can learn to manage some of that risk while continueing to explore further and further.
One thing we should remember is that to the animal that does not have a highly developed sense of belief, such an ability may seem useless. Even when trained to take advantage of the fruits of that belief, they may still poo poo the refined sense that discovered it.

By: kcbrady

kcbrady — Fri, 29 May 2009 15:59:04 +0000

personally, I think it was a two part process.
First we developed the “why” module in our brain. But it was unconstrained by any connections to reality and led to things like religion.
Fortunately, we then developed the “how” module, which allowed us to really investigate the world around us and thereby hangs a tale ….
All our primate relatives (and lots of other mammals) share the other modules with us — who, what, where, and when.
Its “why” that causes all the problems.

By: Rob C.

Rob C. — Wed, 27 May 2009 22:33:45 +0000

How does this square with the meta-tool use by rooks, discussed recently on the BBC website? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8059688.stm] I suppose Wolpert could claim it was “limited” compared to humans, but, still, there seems to be clear evidence that the rooks, in using one stone to get a smaller stone to use to get food, understood a chain of causality.