Is it Fair to trick an Orangutan?

[Navigator]

I don't know the inner mental workings of orangutans. However, comparing the two tricks on the basis of both being illusions ought to require a view where they appear "magical" - wouldn't it?

All the evidence we have in the first video points to the likelihood that the orangutan was not fooled.

Follow his eyes...check out the slight pause as he looks into the now empty container...just before the ROTFL...it's as if he realized that the human was attempting to trick him.

 

[marplots]

All the evidence we have in the first video points to the likelihood that the orangutan was not fooled.

Follow his eyes...check out the slight pause as he looks into the now empty container...just before the ROTFL...it's as if he realized that the human was attempting to trick him.

It's one of those things where I suspect I'd be fooling myself to draw any conclusion. My "theory of other minds" doesn't extend to orangutans.

Admittedly, I went with the premise despite the anthropomorphizing because it's what makes the first video stand out. I like the idea of the orangutan being entertained/happy/surprised. For a serious explanation, I'd want an ethologist to weigh in.

 

[Garrette]

That's because it's only an illusion from the camera's point of view, not the orangutan's.

Yup.

 

[Navigator]

It's one of those things where I suspect I'd be fooling myself to draw any conclusion. My "theory of other minds" doesn't extend to orangutans.

So you didn't draw any conclusions then? The OP drew a conclusion. Most (if not all) of the posters drew the same conclusion so perhaps they are fooling themselves because they drew a conclusion.

Admittedly, I went with the premise despite the anthropomorphizing because it's what makes the first video stand out. I like the idea of the orangutan being entertained/happy/surprised. For a serious explanation, I'd want an ethologist to weigh in.

I don't think you have to be too concerned with anthropomorphizing the orangutan. The behavior was definitely human-like enough for humans to understand.

I am more wondering though if indeed humans have got it wrong as to the reason this reaction happened. Perhaps the reaction was indeed one where the Orangutan realizes that the human thinks it is stupid?

Probably most everyone likes the idea of the orangutan being entertained/happy/surprised - just for the entertainment value, but do you really think it has to be that way? I would encourage you to study the video and pay particular attention to the orangutans eyes...everything about it actions denote intelligence...don't be too concerned with anthropomorphizing as there is a close connection in that department anyway...

 

[Pup]

There are lots of potential reactions to magic tricks by humans. If we take it down to basics, the magic trick shows something impossible in the "real world." The observer must draw a conclusion:

Is the real world not the way he thought?
Is the magician a powerful person able to change reality?
Is the real world impossible to change, so I must have observed something mistakenly?
Did the magician make me observe mistakenly on purpose?
If so, why did he do that?

If humans in the first world see someone come at them with a deck of cards or doing certain hand motions, they'll understand they're about to see a magic trick. The magician is doing it on purpose. He doesn't have special powers. He's doing it to entertain them, because making someone observe reality wrong is considered entertaining in this context. The observer could laugh in delight, could frown in puzzlement, could be truly happy, could be annoyed at the magician the way some people hate mimes.

It's hard enough to figure out what's typical behavior in humans whose contextual knowledge we can guess, let alone in a gorilla who (presumably) isn't aware of all that context and is seeing his first trick. But maybe it's known that this gorilla loves magic tricks and people show them to him all the time...

Edited to add: I forgot page 1 was about an orangutan, not a gorilla, but I'll just leave the mistake, because it's so generic it hardlymatters,

 

[Navigator]

Or...

...it was the appropriate response to a silly attempt at a silly 'trick'.

 

[Pup]

Or...

...it was the appropriate response to a silly attempt at a silly 'trick'.

That brings up the worthwhile question, can a orangutan get the concept of silly? If someone saw an object that looked like a stick horse and took it, galloped around a bit and replaced it, a human might think it was silly and laugh, but would an orangutan? Or does that require knowing such things as horses, riding, stick horses? Hmm... Maybe something that is part of an orangutan's world. Can't think of a good example, but you see where I'm going. I wonder if there are videos of orangutans "getting jokes" or laughing at silliness the way a little child would?

 

[Navigator]

That brings up the worthwhile question, can a orangutan get the concept of silly? If someone saw an object that looked like a stick horse and took it, galloped around a bit and replaced it, a human might think it was silly and laugh, but would an orangutan? Or does that require knowing such things as horses, riding, stick horses? Hmm... Maybe something that is part of an orangutan's world. Can't think of a good example, but you see where I'm going. I wonder if there are videos of orangutans "getting jokes" or laughing at silliness the way a little child would?

So - humans are a lot different than apes after all?

So, why do you think this orangutan reacted the way it did?

 

[Pup]

So - humans are a lot different than apes after all?

Don't get it. Seems you think this contradicts some earlier claim I made?

So, why do you think this orangutan reacted the way it did?

No idea. I don't know enough about ape behavior to speculate.

There's the quick-and-easy typical human reaction: Look at the ape behaving like a human, laughing at a joke! Aren't they smart? Isn't it amazing how much they understand?

Then there's the more nuanced exploration of ape behavior, probably only answerable by the ape's close human observers: Apes do/don't express humor with facial and body expressions as we do. This ape has/doesn't have a sense of humor. This ape has/hasn't interacted with visitors through the glass, particularly ones with computer screens. etc.

 

[Navigator]

Don't get it. Seems you think this contradicts some earlier claim I made?

Yeah.

No idea. I don't know enough about ape behavior to speculate.

There's the quick-and-easy typical human reaction: Look at the ape behaving like a human, laughing at a joke! Aren't they smart? Isn't it amazing how much they understand?

Then there's the more nuanced exploration of ape behavior, probably only answerable by the ape's close human observers: Apes do/don't express humor with facial and body expressions as we do. This ape has/doesn't have a sense of humor. This ape has/hasn't interacted with visitors through the glass, particularly ones with computer screens. etc.

So does this. But hey!

 

[Pup]

Yeah.

So does this. But hey!

Well, I don't know why it's so important to catch me making contradictory statements. Are they giving out double internet points for that today?

But in my only previous different post, #55, I said, "In the other magic tricks, I can guess that the orang saw pretty much the same thing I did, so it doesn't matter how it was done. I can guess what an animal/person's typical reaction would be."

Do you mean I was claiming the bolded part there, and now I'm claiming I can't? Yes, on further thought, I realized that there were many differences I didn't take into consideration.

Not only things like... is an ape's smile and roll the same as a human's? I know what a dog's play-bow is, but I don't bow to another human to initiate a game of catch.

But also the background knowledge, like does he/she even know what a computer is and what's normal. In one of the videos, a magician pulls a real peanut out of a tablet screen for a chimp. It's only a magic trick if you know that's not where real peanuts come from. Maybe it's just the mouth of a tube from a peanut box that the chimp failed to see.

Or conversely, imagine how puzzled a Catholic from 1000 A.D. would be, after given a backstory about gods and demons and alchemy, and allowed to explore the whole device to see there's no room for peanuts. (And what's a peanut to an Old World resident, anyway, LOL.)

 

[Navigator]

Well, I don't know why it's so important to catch me making contradictory statements. Are they giving out double internet points for that today?

Not important. No points. Just the irony.

 

[Pup]

Not important. No points. Just the irony.

When I see some better ideas, I take them into consideration and may even change my mind to include them. Is that unusual in your world? I thought that's the way most people's thought processes worked. Maybe it's something that only certain members of the great apes do.

 

[Navigator]

When I see some better ideas, I take them into consideration and may even change my mind to include them. Is that unusual in your world? I thought that's the way most people's thought processes worked. Maybe it's something that only certain members of the great apes do.

Are you saying that you now think that human beings are way different than apes and that this understanding does not necessarily imply or otherwise force the idea that this makes us somehow superior? Being way different doesn't argue for that, as my part in our previous discussion was pointing at.

 

[Jules Galen]

Is this fair?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YKjGS-WxU

After all it's not a very good trick.

So...who cares?

Yeah, it is unfair to "Trick" an Orangutan, but the Orangutan thinks it is humorous...and so do we. So all is good.

No one suffers. Everyone is amused!

 

[Pup]

Are you saying that you now think that human beings are way different than apes and that this understanding does not necessarily imply or otherwise force the idea that this makes us somehow superior? Being way different doesn't argue for that, as my part in our previous discussion was pointing at.

I don't know which previous discussion you're talking about. Is it even necessary for me to know, though?

The paragraph quoted above can only be answered by first having an argument about the definition of superior. I didn't see how anything I said implied that apes or humans are more or less superior.

More intelligence (like humans) isn't superior, unless you're ranking things according to their intelligence. Then it is. Having more lifetime experiences with computers isn't superior (like some humans), unless you're ranking things according to their amount of lifetime computer experiences. Pick any trait, say that that's the metric for superiority (strength per inch of height, for example), and anyone can be superior.

But of course, that means nothing is really superior, because the word is meaningless without a definition.