| In those studies I don't see any evidence and clear conclusions that the either the chimps or bees could count. I see a lot of meandering about methodologies in the chimp paper and if you see the Concusions paragraph you can see how weak it is: >"CONCLUSIONS: Studies of numerical competence in the chimpanzee continue to provide new insights into the range and capacity for quantitatively based information processing in this species. In general, the rebirth of studies of animal counting currently suggests that this area remains a rich and fruitful source of contributions to our understanding of animal cognition and behavior. And for a truly comparative perspective, it will be important for researchers to challenge their creativity, by continuing to devise new methods for tapping capacities toward counting in a variety of species, including nonhuman primates, rats, birds, and additional new species for whom no data currently exists" The bee paper is more interesting but it also doesn't reach the conclusion that bees can count.
At least it offers a context for the framework used and the conclusions reached. What they did is simulate a neural network that has the bees visual data as input and prove that a simple "inexpensive" computation can in theory scan quantity of perceived objects. Well isn't that just the same as proving that a neural network algorithm can simulate an computer accumulator register? > "Within this framework we have shown that counting and numerical ordering are computationally inexpensive, provided the animal employs an active, sequential scanning of pattern elements." |