Pond Boss Forums Thread Like Summary - Conditioning vs Memory: What's the difference?

Supreme pondmeister Bob Lusk says that fish become conditioned (such as associating the sound of our footsteps with delicious fish pellets), but they have poor memories. Maybe 15 minutes, that's all.

So as a pond nerd, I ask: What's the difference? If fish don't remember to associate footsteps with food, how can they condition to respond the way that they do?

Is it that memory involves specific images, but conditioning is a more vague "after this, then this other thing which I like" deal? Maybe more emotional than rational?

Purely hypothetical, of course, but interesting.

I think to be qualified as memory ... that the thought of the past would have to be recoverable at any time for any purpose. It would have to be something a mind could dwell on and think of for the sake of the thought alone. So usually we associate the word memory with self-cognition and consciousness. On the other hand, I do you see your point. In a conditioned response the information of what to respond to and how to respond lie within brain tissues of the conditioned animal. In as much as this is true we can compare it with a computer which is a machine that stores information. We call that information storage "memory". So what distinguishes the computer from us is our ability to think for the sake of thought itself. Much of our own brains functions occur without us having to think or being aware of the functions requiring attention. So the idea of conditioned response lies within this area of function.

Classical conditioning normally requires multiple experiences, such as Pavlov's dogs salivating after they learned to associate the ringing of a bell with feeding. Memory requires only one experience, such as the time I first met my future wife.

Operant conditioning, such that an action is required to get the desired stimulus, like a dog treat when Fido sits when you say "sit", obviously requires more than classical conditioning. Still may not rise to the level of actual memory, however.

Frank,

I think mammals are definitely further along than the other classes of animals. I have always had dogs and besides training I have had a lot of interaction with them. I have observed a lot of behavior that doesn't quite fit conditioning. For example, I have witnessed what seems to be best described as emotion and I have also ... I think ... observed them reacting to dreams when they sleep. With conditioning, we expect the response to be to avoid a negative outcome or to achieve a positive one. Yet I have observed behavior where there seemed no resultant outcome fitting this criteria. In some cases, like the expression of jealousy, the outcome they achieve is a negative one and yet they not infrequently continue to express the behavior even though they receive negative stimuli. So it's difficult to really understand what is going on in their gray matter but that is part of the enjoyment of having them around. With regards to fish, the conditioned behaviors do the same and make having them around much more fun. So its kind of like the difference between dog that share the house with the humans. The interaction between the species is much richer. So the difference is comparable to a person who has a pond he feeds and a person whose experience with fish is fishing for them at the local lake. The complexity of interaction between the species is richer in the pond where the owner feeds his fish.