This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Micro-Landscapes of the Anthropocene

Eating Crow

In the article, "Anthropomorphomania and the Rise of the Animal Mind: A Conversation", psychologist Daniel Povinelli [DJP] challenges experimental conclusions that crows understand water-displacement (Barker and Povinelli). Under experimental conditions, crows have been observed placing rocks in water-filled tubes to reach floating food pieces (Barker and Povinelli). For DJP, this is explained by an experimental lack of options; quoting DJP, “[W]hen you put an animal in […] that human-like context […] there’s really only three things that can happen: 1) nothing […] 2) the crow can drop the stone outside the test tube […] 3) the crow can drop the stone inside” (79). Here, DJP implies scientists miss human experimental influence as they overlook the fact that experiments are human constructions. Further, DJP points out that surprise at a crow’s ability to put rocks in the top of a tube is based on a (potentially false) belief in human ‘advanced’ cognition: “who thinks birds are so dumb that they don’t realize that they can’t make contact through the glass? (81)

DJP may be leaving out important details, however. As can be observed in this video, crows don’t seem to drop objects into tubes at random (PLOS Media). In order to obtain the floating-food most quickly, crows preference heavier/solid objects, tubes containing more water, and ignore materials which can’t be displaced (PLOS Media). So, do crows understand physics or not? Well, this question perhaps can’t be settled by our current ways of experimentation. Just as we overlook the ‘human-like’ conditions of our ‘neutral’ experimental environments simply because we intended these environments to be neutral, so too may we overlook human interference in our experimental perception/s simply because we attempted to correct for it.

Consider the following observations; first, “[crows] can do exactly what the chimps are doing, and maybe even [do] it faster or more accurately” (Barker and Povinelli 82) and, “[experimental] evidence with the chimps [isn’t] diagnostic of higher-order reasoning.” (82). This leads to a question DJP hides within a statement: “what kinds of behaviors could ever really provide evidence of higher-order cognitive abilities[?]” (82). If we can’t objectively measure—or delineate between—levels of cognition then humanity’s entire grounds for delineation between the human and non-human falls to pieces. Further, that, “[such] tests aren't diagnostic for human higher-order abilities any more than they are for […] chimps or crows” (82) identifies a potential reason as to why delineation between human and non-human fails under scrutiny; that we can define the difference between human and non-human is based upon a false assumption, that we have ever had the capacity to define ourselves.

Toby Francis (z5342546)

Works Cited
Backpack Full of Questions. “Crow Using Stick as Tool,” Backpack Full of Questions, 20 Sept. 2016, backpackfullofquestions.com/2016/09/20/the-smart-crow-a-true-story/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022. Image courtesy of Nature.
Barker, K. Brandon, and Daniel J. Povinelli. “Anthropomorphomania and the Rise of the Animal Mind: A Conversation.” Journal of Folklore Research, vol. 56, no. 2-3, 2019, p. 71, muse-jhu-edu.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/article/735444, 10.2979/jfolkrese.56.2_3.05. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.
PLOS Media. “Causal Understanding of Water Displacement by a Crow.” YouTube, 26 Mar. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.

This page has paths:

Contents of this path:

Contents of this path:

This page has replies:

Reading this work reminded me of the famous double-slit experiment, where light behaves as both a wave and a particle. However, under the act of observation, it will always appear to be a particle. This is called the observer effect, where “the act of observation alters the behavior of the particles being observed” (Vaidyanathan). This parallels our observation of non-human nature, where nature can occupy numerous states, but will behave differently if observed.
This is most noticeable with urban wildlife, where pigeons, seagulls, racoons, etc., have identified humans as a source of food. These animals have learnt to override their natural instincts and venture towards a predatory threat for the sake of food. On the other hand, it is also true that wildlife may be observed with their awareness. We possess powerful cameras with over 100x magnification, hidden cameras that can record at night, helicopters that can scope the landscape from above, and tracking devices that monitor a creature’s every move once implanted. However, it is unsure whether we are still observing these non-human entities in their most ‘natural’ state.
Rodrigues writes how before technology, it was unclear whether observation and habituation (where the humans follow their animal subjects until they got used to them). Although we can now observe these animals at a distance, we still have the capacity to indirectly influence non-human nature. Rodrigues describes how the vervet monkeys she studied realised that they could feel safe around their human researchers as they warded off their leopard predators. “The data indicated that the monkeys’ disappearance rate was 3.6 times higher during periods when observers were away”, revealing the likely correlation between the human and leopard presence. As such, maybe everytime we try to observe something in its natural habitat, the act of doing so makes the habitat unnatural, even in some miniscule way. Our human influence acts upon non-human in often subtle ways, which questions whether these animals are truly animal or partly something of human sculpted through human observation. The immense network of interactions of nature is so entangled, that perhaps the act of reading this passage on your computer is affecting the behaviour of some creature all the way on the other side of the world.

Works cited:
Vaidyanathan, Venkatesh. “ What Is The Observer Effect In Quantum Mechanics?” ScienceABC, 8 Jul 2022, https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/observer-effect-quantum-mechanics.html
Rodrigues, Michelle. “Quantum Chimpanzees: Do Watched Primates Change Their Behavior?” This View of Life, 17 May 2018, https://thisviewoflife.com/quantum-chimpanzees-do-watched-primates-change-their-behavior/
Contents of this reply:
1. Eating Crow In the article, "Anthropomorphomania and the Rise of the Animal Mind: A Conversation", psychologist Daniel Povinelli [DJP] challenges experimental conclusions that crows understand water-displacement (Barker and Povinelli). Under experimental conditions, crows have been observed placing rocks in water-filled tubes to reach floating food pieces (Barker and Povinelli). For DJP, this is explained by an experimental lack of options; quoting DJP, “[W]hen you put an animal in […] that human-like context […] there’s really only three things that can happen: 1) nothing […] 2) the crow can drop the stone outside the test tube […] 3) the crow can drop the stone inside” (79). Here, DJP implies scientists miss human experimental influence as they overlook the fact that experiments are human constructions. Further, DJP points out that surprise at a crow’s ability to put rocks in the top of a tube is based on a (potentially false) belief in human ‘advanced’ cognition: “who thinks birds are so dumb that they don’t realize that they can’t make contact through the glass? (81)
  
  DJP may be leaving out important details, however. As can be observed in this video, crows don’t seem to drop objects into tubes at random (PLOS Media). In order to obtain the floating-food most quickly, crows preference heavier/solid objects, tubes containing more water, and ignore materials which can’t be displaced (PLOS Media). So, do crows understand physics or not? Well, this question perhaps can’t be settled by our current ways of experimentation. Just as we overlook the ‘human-like’ conditions of our ‘neutral’ experimental environments simply because we intended these environments to be neutral, so too may we overlook human interference in our experimental perception/s simply because we attempted to correct for it.
  
  Consider the following observations; first, “[crows] can do exactly what the chimps are doing, and maybe even [do] it faster or more accurately” (Barker and Povinelli 82) and, “[experimental] evidence with the chimps [isn’t] diagnostic of higher-order reasoning.” (82). This leads to a question DJP hides within a statement: “what kinds of behaviors could ever really provide evidence of higher-order cognitive abilities[?]” (82). If we can’t objectively measure—or delineate between—levels of cognition then humanity’s entire grounds for delineation between the human and non-human falls to pieces. Further, that, “[such] tests aren't diagnostic for human higher-order abilities any more than they are for […] chimps or crows” (82) identifies a potential reason as to why delineation between human and non-human fails under scrutiny; that we can define the difference between human and non-human is based upon a false assumption, that we have ever had the capacity to define ourselves.
  
  Toby Francis (z5342546)
  
  Works Cited
  Backpack Full of Questions. “Crow Using Stick as Tool,” Backpack Full of Questions, 20 Sept. 2016, backpackfullofquestions.com/2016/09/20/the-smart-crow-a-true-story/. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022. Image courtesy of Nature.
  Barker, K. Brandon, and Daniel J. Povinelli. “Anthropomorphomania and the Rise of the Animal Mind: A Conversation.” Journal of Folklore Research, vol. 56, no. 2-3, 2019, p. 71, muse-jhu-edu.wwwproxy1.library.unsw.edu.au/article/735444, 10.2979/jfolkrese.56.2_3.05. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.
  PLOS Media. “Causal Understanding of Water Displacement by a Crow.” YouTube, 26 Mar. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZerUbHmuY04. Accessed 3 Nov. 2022.

This page references:

Crow using a stick as a tool