jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:

"... conducting the experiment, "

And that's a problem right there.
Scientists almost never conduct a single experiment - not in the way you're
presenting.

They certainly almost never _interpret the results_ of a single experiment.

Experiments are usually done in sets.  Blank, Control, Standards, Sets of
identical conditions but with one variable.

Then those experiments are interpreted _in context_.
And that's in vitro.  In vivo is much more complicated - just ask anyone
studying medicine and doing new drug development.

There are false positives, false negatives, and a host of other complications.

https://www.google.com/search?q=percent+of+medical+studies+can%27t+be+trusted
http://retractionwatch.com/
Check out the last paragraph:
http://www.orgsyn.org/content/pdfs/Procedures/v88p0001.pdf

But back to your original experimental setup, how do the two organisms maneuver
through the maze?  By sight? How do you know what wavelengths they use?  Is the
atmosphere in the maze interfering with that?  Smell? How do you know the
organisms can smell it?  Taste?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylthiocarbamide
You'd need to account for genetic variation.
Tactile sensation?   What's the nerve density and sensory resolution?

I suppose if we have to be limited by what you present, then I'd look at what
each organism did.
If it was more of the same - stupid.
If it tried new and different things, and variations on those - then
intelligent.

Maybe put a one-way door in, and see which one props it open (recognizes the
concept of irreversibility, time, order of operations, and keeping options open)

Post a reply to this message