Do some Animals, aside from Humans, think?

[Undesired Walrus]

I understand that there is a Gorrilla somewhere that can actually express itself using sign language, which is quite extraordinary in my book.

I just wonder, can the more intelligent animals, like Apes and Dolphins actually think? I think I heard that Dolphins actually have their own language, or something like that. Seeing how Chimps can now prove themselves to have better memory than Humans, presumably there is some process going on in their minds that is beyond 'food ug. Mate ug ug.'

[Jimbo07]

I'm sure that even 'lesser' animals, such as dogs, think. However, given an ingrained prejudice toward the 'specialness' of humans, and lacking better communication, it's going to be hard to ever provide conclusive proof for some people...

[DouglasL]

The Gorilla that can talk in sign language was an unintentional hoax.
The gorillas handlers would misinterpret random gestures as a word in sign language. Outside testing with deaf people (who only "spoke" in sign language) confirmed that the gorilla only had a limited vocabulary and would use some of that vocabulary randomly (gibberish).

[DouglasL]

I do however believe that animals can think in much the same manner that I myself do. It is the quality of those thoughts that are the question.

[Darat]

Certainly animals display many of the same behaviours as humans do and since we are biologically so closely related I don't think it is step too far to consider that those behaviours occur for the same reasons as they do in humans.

Now that of course doesn't mean they experience a "me" in exactly the same way as I do but certainly I would be suprised if the animals with more similar brain structures to humans do not at least share some of that "me" expereience.

(Of course the above is really an argument from lack-of-incredulity. :))

[Dymanic]

If they were capable of pondering semantic conundrums like: what does it mean to "think"? or philosophical conundrums like: is that a semantic conundrum, or a philosophical one? or grammatical conundrums like: what is the proper plural form of "conundrum"?, then my answer would be: yes, definitely; but I'm not sure what good it does them to do any of that.

But obviously, they can't, so my answer is: sure... sorta.

[Dancing David]

I understand that there is a Gorrilla somewhere that can actually express itself using sign language, which is quite extraordinary in my book.

I just wonder, can the more intelligent animals, like Apes and Dolphins actually think? I think I heard that Dolphins actually have their own language, or something like that. Seeing how Chimps can now prove themselves to have better memory than Humans, presumably there is some process going on in their minds that is beyond 'food ug. Mate ug ug.'

Maybe you need to define thought, verbal cognition?

[patnray]

Scientific American from last April (IIRC) had an article about crows. In one experiment crows were observed solving a puzzle to obtain food by staring at the situation for a few moments then implementing the correct solution (which required a series of coordinated moves) without any trial and error.

A certain species of fish is subject to fungus growing in their mouths. Another species of fish eats the fungus. If there is a cleaner fish in the area the fish will line up and open their mouths to be "serviced". But if a particular cleaner fish takes a bite of the fish's mouth along with the fungus, that fish will no longer open its mouth for that particular cleaner fish. Quite amazing really - the fish can identify individuals of the other species and can remember which ones bite.

So, the answer is "Yes"

[Slimething]

I agree that animals think. I don't use their inability to communicate with us as a valid measure of intelligence or thought.

[NobbyNobbs]

Interesting that this thread just came up. Just yesterday, I finished Next, by Michael Crichton. It's about transgenetic animals.


ETA: Or is it "transgenic"? It may be. Gotta check.

[Molinaro]

I don't think they have an internal monologue on the go :)

I do think they likely share much the same thinking as we do, when we are not using an internal monologue to think.

[XBoxWarrior]

I'm pretty sure my, "Moses" can think.......(my dog)

He knows when I say, "You wanna go for a walk"?

and he can differentiate that from, "Do you wanna go to work"?

that being said, He has No Freakin Idea, that he will die in 8 more years.......

But I will love him every year till he does, unless I Jump first......

then it's all on the Moses.

p.s. sure they think

[Ron_Tomkins]

Interesting that this thread just came up. Just yesterday, I finished Next, by Michael Crichton. It's about transgenetic animals.


ETA: Or is it "transgenic"? It may be. Gotta check.



It's interesting you said that. I was on the other hand remembering another book by Michael Cricthon where he talks a lot about the subject: Congo.

[Ziggurat]

The Gorilla that can talk in sign language was an unintentional hoax.
The gorillas handlers would misinterpret random gestures as a word in sign language. Outside testing with deaf people (who only "spoke" in sign language) confirmed that the gorilla only had a limited vocabulary and would use some of that vocabulary randomly (gibberish).

Animals can definitely have a vocabulary. Parots, for example, are definitely "speaking", some with impressively large vocabularies. But what they don't seem to be able to do is form a grammar. Individual words can mean things to them, and even strings of words can mean things, but as a set phrase which acts like one big word. The human capacity for grammar seems to be unique.

[quarky]

We have almost no knowledge of what takes place in the largest brains on earth.
We have immense data on how to hunt them and render them down for oil.

Kind of shameful, really.

[Olowkow]

Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language

There are many different studies with different kinds of primates, and some are pretty compelling, but it seems that linguists are pretty skeptical of all of it. The stumbling block is that there is no evidence of actual "syntax", in the way the natural languages use it. It certainly seems that "communication" is taking place however.

At least two elements are necessary for "natural language" syntax: invention (of new words), and recursion, or embedding.

There are some pretty remarkable parrot acts also, but this is more along the lines of the "counting horse", I would think.

[SirPhilip]

Living things with a sensory arrangement less than five don't possess cognition.

[tsg]

Why do you assume that humans do?

[Wildy]

Well it seems that many people agree that animals think. Frankly I think that is what my ducks must do most of the time. They just sit there silently and do nothing.

[OT]
What we hear:

"Woof woof bark woof woof yelp woof"

"Woof yelp bark woof woof woof"

What they hear:

"No no no, you see it's because we act in this submissive fashion that the humans think that they own us when in fact it is clearly the other way around"

"However you have to remember that there are humans that have shown themselves to be dominant over their dog."

(I like The Far Side)

[Akhenaten]

Why do you assume that humans do?

My first thought, actually. Well, OK, I borrowed it from Monty Python.

And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth.

http://www.gecdsb.on.ca/d&g/astro/music/Galaxy_Song.html

[UnrepentantSinner]

The Gorilla that can talk in sign language was an unintentional hoax.
The gorillas handlers would misinterpret random gestures as a word in sign language. Outside testing with deaf people (who only "spoke" in sign language) confirmed that the gorilla only had a limited vocabulary and would use some of that vocabulary randomly (gibberish).

That first sentence isn't entirely true. While the syntax used by Koko, Washoe and others was found to be gibberish by ASL signers, the conclusion that their communication abilities didn't exist comes more from lingiusts than from psychologists or biologists.

Also elephants mourn their dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Death_ritual).

[Complexity]

Yes. A great many animals think.

[DanishDynamite]

I understand that there is a Gorrilla somewhere that can actually express itself using sign language, which is quite extraordinary in my book.

I just wonder, can the more intelligent animals, like Apes and Dolphins actually think? I think I heard that Dolphins actually have their own language, or something like that. Seeing how Chimps can now prove themselves to have better memory than Humans, presumably there is some process going on in their minds that is beyond 'food ug. Mate ug ug.'
Forget the Gorilla. Look up Kanzi, the bonobo. Prepare to be amazed.

[Ivor the Engineer]

<--------------Monty is currently working on the Riemann hypothesis. He likes to lick my uncle's ears in his spare time.

[Normal Dude]

Also elephants mourn their dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_intelligence#Death_ritual).

Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjtrdpSwEUY

The music is annoying, but the vid is interesting. Some anecdotes on the subject seem a bit farfetched though.

[baron]

All animals think. How else would they process information?

[jimbob]

De Waal's Law

People such as primatologists and zookeepers who work on a daily basis with apes, always have a high opinion of apes' intelligence and abilities. Those who attempt to minimize apes' language abilities and cognitive skills are always people with little or no first-hand experience with apes.

From Our Inner Ape -Frans de Waal, one of my favourite books, which I will plug at every opportunity...

He reprises some of subjjects in his seminal book "Chimpanzee Politics" (my wife is an antrhopologist and she described it as seminal, so I won't argue)...

The stories seem very convincing that both chimps and bonobos share psychological traits with us. One female was unable to suckle her young, and he taught her to bottlefeed. He visited the zoo a long time later (15 years IIRC), and she singled him out for greeting with what he said could only be described as gratitude.

One low status female was mean with any food she found,and so never got offered any, whilst another similar-status female was generous and always got offered food by the others. The book is full of examples that seem to demonstrate a "theory of mind" by the chimps. He also points out that when researchers set up experiments as to whether chimps have a theory of mind about humans they often get poor results. But then humans often will have seemed to demonstrate inexplicable knowledge (due to hidden cameras etc), which might skew these results, and lead chimps to suppose that if they knew about something the humans might too.

[Jeff Corey]

The Gorilla that can talk in sign language was an unintentional hoax.
The gorillas handlers would misinterpret random gestures as a word in sign language. Outside testing with deaf people (who only "spoke" in sign language) confirmed that the gorilla only had a limited vocabulary and would use some of that vocabulary randomly (gibberish).

You are confusing the gorilla Koko with Herb Terrace's chimp Nim Chimpsky. And that is still inaccurate.
As Danish Dynamite said, check out the bonobos, Kanzi, et al.

[mhaze]

You are confusing the gorilla Koko with Herb Terrace's chimp Nim Chimpsky. And that is still inaccurate.
As Danish Dynamite said, check out the bonobos, Kanzi, et al.

Wasn't it Nim Chimspsky's chimp, Noam Chomsky?

Seriously. Here is a factoid.

Dog at bottom of steps. I just gave it a dog biscuit. The dog put it down at the base of the steps.

I walked six paces and motioned for the dog to come. Dog pauses, then grabs the biscuit and trots up. Looked like a decision process with cognitive delays.

(a) disobey (BAD IDEA, but sometimes has big payoff but this is only a little biscuit)
(b) eat biscuit then follow master (BAD IDEA, he might be going inside and I wouldn't get to go inside)
(c) other options? what to do? what to do? EUREKA! Pick it up and follow master, eat biscuit later.

[quarky]

If anyone is intrigued by ape-intelligence studies, dolphins will really stun you.

The rub in assessing dolphin intelligence is that they live in an alien enviornment.
We have almost nothing in common with them.
Apes play into our innate anthropological chauvanism.
They behave like retarded humans, when put in school.

Dolphins, on the other hand, bore very easily, as though our intelligence tests are below them. In either animal, human dominance is essential in the assessment.

We have no tests that could possibly address an animal more 'intelligent' than we.
We don't go there.
We probably won't ever go there.

we are heavily invested with the notion of being the 'crown of creation'.

Without the willingness to set that aside, we will learn nothing about alien intelligence, or the lack thereof.

Brain mass used to be the reference point, as per intelligence.
That there are several species on earth with much larger brains than us...well, that has always been something to avoid...if only to continue to justify the slaughter; the inherrent superiority of being able to slaughter.

Basicly, we are smart, and nothing else is, as proved by our ability to exterminate them.

There is no other reliable interpretation of intelligence.
We can kill everything we don't understand; therefore, we rule.
If whales were so smart, they would have killed us, right?

(forget bonobos, chimps, gorillas, and other great apes. they have no chance against human intelligence.)

[Normal Dude]

They behave like retarded humans, when put in school.

Really? When did you see this comparison side by side?



Dolphins, on the other hand, bore very easily, as though our intelligence tests are below them. In either animal, human dominance is essential in the assessment.

We have no tests that could possibly address an animal more 'intelligent' than we.
We don't go there.
We probably won't ever go there.

we are heavily invested with the notion of being the 'crown of creation'.

Without the willingness to set that aside, we will learn nothing about alien intelligence, or the lack thereof.

Brain mass used to be the reference point, as per intelligence.
That there are several species on earth with much larger brains than us...well, that has always been something to avoid...if only to continue to justify the slaughter; the inherrent superiority of being able to slaughter.

Basicly, we are smart, and nothing else is, as proved by our ability to exterminate them.

There is no other reliable interpretation of intelligence.
We can kill everything we don't understand; therefore, we rule.
If whales were so smart, they would have killed us, right?

(forget bonobos, chimps, gorillas, and other great apes. they have no chance against human intelligence.)

Could you please state the point you are trying to make, and how it relates to the subject of this thread.

[quarky]

we are in no position to test intelligence, much less if we are the only species that thinks.
We don't even have a real definition of thought.

Fortunately, for other organisms, our superior intelligence and sole ability for thought, will soon remove us from the evolutionary history.

[Normal Dude]

we are in no position to test intelligence, much less if we are the only species that thinks.
We don't even have a real definition of thought.

Fortunately, for other organisms, our superior intelligence and sole ability for thought, will soon remove us from the evolutionary history.

I'd like to hear exactly why you believe we cannot test intelligence or the ability to think. From the neuropsychology perspective, there is a definition of thought. Look it up.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about, and are simply using this thread to get on your soapbox about the evils of humanity. Even a simple search would show that quite a bit of thought has been put into this (forgive the pun).

we are heavily invested with the notion of being the 'crown of creation'What the heck is this "we" stuff? Do you seriously think this applies to everyone?

By the way, I would still like to know you arrived at the conclusion that apes behave like retarded children when put in school.

Oh,

Dolphins, on the other hand, bore very easily, as though our intelligence tests are below them.Linky please.

By your definition of intelligence, the bubonic plague must have all been microscopic geniuses.

[Jeff Corey]

Normal Dude, I have been trying to find a neuropsycholoigcal defintion of thought.
Guess what. Ain't one.

[eir_de_scania]

I agree that animals think. I don't use their inability to communicate with us as a valid measure of intelligence or thought.
They communicate with us all the time. Body language, mostly.

Animals think? I'm certain they do. But animals live here and now, they don't worry about tomorrow or regret yesterday.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If anyone is intrigued by ape-intelligence studies, dolphins will really stun you.

Dolphins? Bah! Everyone knows the most intelligent beings on earth are mice.

------------------------

Back to the OP, aren't we neglecting mollusks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_intelligence)?

[BenBurch]

I'm not even sure all HUMANS think.

[articulett]

Here is a test showing "selective imitation" in dogs:

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn11720

The dogs seemed to think that the dog with a ball in it's mouth used her paw to move the food lever because of the ball-- they imitated getting the food by using their mouth... whereas, when the dog did not have a ball in her mouth and used her paw to move the lever--they used their paws too. That was a clever test that shows a degree of thought for sure.

[Acleron]

The dogs seemed to think that the dog with a ball in it's mouth used her paw to move the food lever because of the ball-- they imitated getting the food by using their mouth... whereas, when the dog did not have a ball in her mouth and used her paw to move the lever--they used their paws too. That was a clever test that shows a degree of thought for sure.

If the dogs seeing the demo of dog with ball in mouth intuit that it's easier to use their own mouth rather than a paw, why do the dogs seeing the demo without the ball not reach the same conclusion? From the results, the ball makes a difference but there may be a different explanation than that given.

[jimbob]

Dolphins? Bah! Everyone knows the most intelligent beings on earth are mice.


"never trust an animal that smiles all the time, it is up to something"

[Dancing David]

we are in no position to test intelligence, much less if we are the only species that thinks.
We don't even have a real definition of thought.

Fortunately, for other organisms, our superior intelligence and sole ability for thought, will soon remove us from the evolutionary history.


Okey dokey, this is science not R&P, um look up number line testing and problems solving.

While I agree that the destruction of habitat and species is a problem, testing for cognitive skills is what it is. I suggest you google the term 'behaviorism'.

As to 'real defintion of thought' , you are out of the ball park and not even in the city.

[Dancing David]

Look up cognitive psychology.


Um, there is still notan neurophysiological definition beyond something like 'assumed interaction of neural networks'.

Not a very good argument. The fact that there is cognitive neuroscience does not mean that 'thought' is well defined. Most people mistake verbal cognition for thought.

[jimbob]

They communicate with us all the time. Body language, mostly.

Animals think? I'm certain they do. But animals live here and now, they don't worry about tomorrow or regret yesterday.

There is some evidence that some great apes seem to plan.

(Finding a high value foodstuffand "nonchalantly" covering it up, then returning when no other chimps/bonobos(?) were around)

[e-sabbath]

My dog can figure out how to get treats hidden in unusual locations, including via indirect means. (For example, exiting the current room, travelling through two other rooms, and coming around the rear.) She taught herself how to open a doorknob. My previous dog taught himself how to turn on the television remote, among other tricks, and did so for his own entertainment.

She has a vocabulary of ... meh, call it under a hundred words. "Where's Mommy?" will get a different response from "Where's Daddy?", and Mom can be in a place not easily trackable by smell, and still will be found. "Uncle's coming over later." will get the dog to rush to the window overlooking the driveway.

... not so good on telling time, no, but evidence of thought processes, yes.

[billydkid]

I bewildered as to why anyone would arrive at the idea that animals don't think. Of course they think. Why would anyone think otherwise? Obviously, other animals are less intelligent than humans (by our typical definition of intelligence) and it is clear that the capacity for abstract thought diminishes with brain size and complexity ultimately to a vanishing point, but it is nonsensical to suppose there is some quantum difference between human brain function and that of other animals. You can thank religion, I would guess, for this ridiculous idea that humans are of another order of being compared to all other life.

[quarky]

I'd like to hear exactly why you believe we cannot test intelligence or the ability to think. From the neuropsychology perspective, there is a definition of thought. Look it up.

I don't think you have any clue what you are talking about, and are simply using this thread to get on your soapbox about the evils of humanity. Even a simple search would show that quite a bit of thought has been put into this (forgive the pun).

What the heck is this "we" stuff? Do you seriously think this applies to everyone?

By the way, I would still like to know you arrived at the conclusion that apes behave like retarded children when put in school.

Oh,

Linky please.

By your definition of intelligence, the bubonic plague must have all been microscopic geniuses.

I didn't mean to start a stink with my snide comments regarding our assumed role as the sole intelligence on the planet. Its a pet peeve, no pun intended.
Perhaps I should have said that great apes tested more like 3 year old kids than retarded humans...although retardation is often expressed in terms of cognitive abilities of immature humans.

Certainly, there is no shortage of tests that show problem solving abilities in non-humans. Crows and ravens show an uncanny ability to solve problems in a creative way, in spite of their tiny brains. With the great apes, we are liklier to anthropomorphisize the findings of various tests.

With cetaceans, its harder to do that, because they are so alien. We hardly know where to begin with an I.Q. test.
I was fortunate to observe some of the attempts at determining the intelligence of tursiops in the 70's (flipper sea school, Marathon, fl.)
In a sense, the results often showed that we weren't able to design a good test.

But never mind the smiling dolphin. What about the unsmiling spermwhale?
There's the largest brain on earth. And we are at a loss to study it, short of dissection. We have almost no clue what goes on in a whale brain.

[articulett]

If the dogs seeing the demo of dog with ball in mouth intuit that it's easier to use their own mouth rather than a paw, why do the dogs seeing the demo without the ball not reach the same conclusion? From the results, the ball makes a difference but there may be a different explanation than that given.

It seems that they presume the dog doing the modeling can't use it's mouth for some reason... that the paw is required... but when she has the ball in her mouth they appear to think she would have used her mouth if the ball wasn't in it, and they use their mouth rather than her paw. What other explanation are you thinking it could be?

[JJM]

There is an article on primate language in the latest Skeptic magazine. "Aping Language" by Clive Wynne, vol. 13, no. 4, 2008 pp. 10-14.

I am not much interested in this subject, so I have not read it.

[articulett]

zCMc9IEFoMY

TICFnQK1tAc

[Acleron]

It seems that they presume the dog doing the modeling can't use it's mouth for some reason... that the paw is required... but when she has the ball in her mouth they appear to think she would have used her mouth if the ball wasn't in it, and they use their mouth rather than her paw. What other explanation are you thinking it could be?

Their hypothesis explains the effects of seeing a demo of a dog with a ball in its mouth. It just surprises me that having that level of intelligence, the dogs seeing a no-ball demo didn't just use their mouths. After all, given a choice, dogs usually use their mouths, lips, teeth and tongues for manipulation more than their paws.

Having re-read your link (ie having really read it :o) I realised it says 'almost all' for each group, my first impression was that it was a 100% switch in behaviours. Perhaps a closer look at the figures will convince me.

[Professor Yaffle]

Animals can definitely have a vocabulary. Parots, for example, are definitely "speaking", some with impressively large vocabularies. But what they don't seem to be able to do is form a grammar. Individual words can mean things to them, and even strings of words can mean things, but as a set phrase which acts like one big word. The human capacity for grammar seems to be unique.

Unless they are trained to speak like the now sadly deceased Alex.

http://www.alexfoundation.org/index.htm

[pmckean]

I assume that all animals think and their behaviour seems to be strongly suggestive of this.

The only question, for me, is how close their mental processes are to ours.

Do they have a sense of self?
Can they think in an abstract way?

Mirror self-recognition is a way of establishing whether an animal understand that is has a 'self'. It is very rare in the animal world, apparently, and has so far been observed only in humans, apes, dolphins and elephants.

Here's a link to Joshua Plotnik's fascinating paper on elephant MSR.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0608062103v1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=elephants&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

[sphenisc]

I bewildered as to why anyone would arrive at the idea that animals don't think. Of course they think. Why would anyone think otherwise?

That's because they put Descartes before the horse.


... I'll get my coat...

[Dancing David]

I didn't mean to start a stink with my snide comments regarding our assumed role as the sole intelligence on the planet. Its a pet peeve, no pun intended.
Perhaps I should have said that great apes tested more like 3 year old kids than retarded humans...although retardation is often expressed in terms of cognitive abilities of immature humans.

Certainly, there is no shortage of tests that show problem solving abilities in non-humans. Crows and ravens show an uncanny ability to solve problems in a creative way, in spite of their tiny brains. With the great apes, we are liklier to anthropomorphisize the findings of various tests.

With cetaceans, its harder to do that, because they are so alien. We hardly know where to begin with an I.Q. test.
I was fortunate to observe some of the attempts at determining the intelligence of tursiops in the 70's (flipper sea school, Marathon, fl.)
In a sense, the results often showed that we weren't able to design a good test.

But never mind the smiling dolphin. What about the unsmiling spermwhale?
There's the largest brain on earth. And we are at a loss to study it, short of dissection. We have almost no clue what goes on in a whale brain.


It ain't the size it is the cortical organizations. Birds are very smart and have color vision. I would assume so are many sea mammals, smart not color vision.

[Dancing David]

That's because they put Descartes before the horse.


... I'll get my coat...

You can lead the horse to Descartes but you can't make them ...

[aggle-rithm]

My dog can figure out how to get treats hidden in unusual locations, including via indirect means. (For example, exiting the current room, travelling through two other rooms, and coming around the rear.) She taught herself how to open a doorknob. My previous dog taught himself how to turn on the television remote, among other tricks, and did so for his own entertainment.

She has a vocabulary of ... meh, call it under a hundred words. "Where's Mommy?" will get a different response from "Where's Daddy?", and Mom can be in a place not easily trackable by smell, and still will be found. "Uncle's coming over later." will get the dog to rush to the window overlooking the driveway.

... not so good on telling time, no, but evidence of thought processes, yes.

We have two border collies, and I have no doubt that they can think. As far as I can tell, though, their way of thinking differs from ours in two respects:

1. Their working memory (analogous to L1 or L2 cache in a computer) is smaller than ours, so they aren't good at solving problems that rely on working backwards from steps they just took. This explains why dogs seem incredibly stupid when they can't figure out how to unwind their leash from the tree they just wrapped themselved around.

2. They don't do deep processing, meaning that they take each situation as it is rather than interpreting it and extrapolating based on past experience. This is why, when I teach a dog to sit, the task "sit in the living room" is different from the task "sit in the back yard". They don't generalize well. This ability in humans is probably what allowed us to develop language.

Speaking of communication, it's a common misconception that dogs communicate verbally, as we do. They do SOME verbal communication, but it's really only needed when the dogs can't see each other. They have an enormous body-language vocabulary. For instance, the old saying "dogs can smell fear" actually arises from the dog's tendency to analyze our body language, often misinterpreting it because our body language is different from theirs. When we are afraid of a dog, it usually shows up in our body language in the form of stiff, deliberate movement. In dog language, stiffness is a sign that a dog is getting ready to attack. Naturally, this upsets the other dog, and he goes on the offensive.

[e-sabbath]

Actually, my Standard Poodle is _pretty_ good at working backwards. One of the great differences between that breed and Border Collies, I think. Border Collies are better at actually solving puzzles, Poodles can, if so inclined, figure out what they just did wrong.

... they're not inclined that often.

[Dogdoctor]

I don't know if dolphins have language in any way that would satisfy linguists but there is no reason to think that animals can't think. They can learn and if they can then they think.

[Jeff Corey]

Planaria can learn simple mazes {operant conditioning) and show classical conditioning. I have a video of a goldfish I trained to perform a chain of responses to get food (swim through hoop ->press lever -> food delivered). Would you consider this evidence that they think?

[Dogdoctor]

Planaria can learn simple mazes {operant conditioning) and show classical conditioning. I have a video of a goldfish I trained to perform a chain of responses to get food (swim through hoop ->press lever -> food delivered). Would you consider this evidence that they think?

In my mind that would qualify as a basic thought process =thinking
edited to add thinking

[e-sabbath]

Once a planaria learns something, you can cut it up, feed it to another planaria, and the new planaria may suddenly know the same trick.

[Jeff Corey]

Not really. Mc Connell's findings have not been replicated when appropriate controls were established. Otherwise Professors emeriti would be willing their bodies to the student cafeteria.

[Jeff Corey]

Not really. Mc Connell's findings have not been replicated when appropriate controls were established. Otherwise Professors emeriti would be willing their bodies to the student cafeteria.

Today's Specials
Word Salad with dressing a la Chomsky
English pot pie with Sir Francis Bacon
Schroedinger's cat a la mode Francaise
And for afters:
Fermat's Last Theorum n=2 tiered layer cake with nuggets of unsolvable conundrums.

[quarky]

is Rupert Sheldrake a curse word here?

[Dancing David]

Not a curse but certainly a good example of a lack of controls.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think I alluded to it in this thread a while back, but I'd like to ask the psychologists - would, say, a scallop trying to get away from a starfish be "thought", outside of some innate instinct, and would the decision to go in X direction vs. Y be any different than a humans instinctual "thoughts" to run towards safety or in a particular direction away from danger.

When I drive around my campus at night I see failures of instinctual thought vs. rational thought constantly (rabbits that are in perfectly good positions waiting until my vehicle is upon them to run in front of me, or killdeers taking flight to fly in front of my truck, but could these not be decisions that seem rational within the context of instinct or evolution for a prey species that would appear to be outside the scope of "thought" to beings that have the evolutionary baggage of being pray and predator as well as developing rational cognizance in flight or fight situations?

(Sorry to the pros if this nonsensical. I've had 9 beers and will clarify anything I've muddled much later this evening when I'm back at work.)

[wolfgirl]

I remember reading many years ago about studies with dolphins where they (and maybe dogs, but I don't recall for sure) were the only animals that had shown the ability for "complex" language understanding. For example, you could tell them something like "take the red ball under the bar and then put it into the round hole," and they would be able to do it. Most animals can only comprehend simple statements like "red ball" but can't master the "unders" and "thens" and "intos." That's my basic recollection, and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it, but as I said it was maybe 20 years ago.

I've also read some stuff that makes a lot of sense to me (and has been touched on by quarky) about our inability to really comprehend dolphin (and other marine mammal) intelligence because their environments are so alien to us, as is the way they perceive their environment. Their use of sonar means a very different way of translating incoming data, which could mean a very different brain process that we are unable to truly understand. We only test intelligence as we know it ourselves.

[aggle-rithm]

When I drive around my campus at night I see failures of instinctual thought vs. rational thought constantly (rabbits that are in perfectly good positions waiting until my vehicle is upon them to run in front of me, or killdeers taking flight to fly in front of my truck, but could these not be decisions that seem rational within the context of instinct or evolution for a prey species that would appear to be outside the scope of "thought" to beings that have the evolutionary baggage of being pray and predator as well as developing rational cognizance in flight or fight situations?



How about kittens, who for some reason feel compelled to squeeze through a slamming door at the last second? Or try to get your attention by scrambling to get between your foot and the floor as you're walking?

It's a wonder any of them survive to cathood.

[aggle-rithm]

I remember reading many years ago about studies with dolphins where they (and maybe dogs, but I don't recall for sure) were the only animals that had shown the ability for "complex" language understanding. For example, you could tell them something like "take the red ball under the bar and then put it into the round hole," and they would be able to do it. Most animals can only comprehend simple statements like "red ball" but can't master the "unders" and "thens" and "intos." That's my basic recollection, and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it, but as I said it was maybe 20 years ago.


There are many dog trainers who tell you to reinforce the meaning of a word, such as "sit", by saying "good sit!" when they do what you want them to do.

Others say this is ridiculous. Although "good sit" is a very simple sentence to us, understanding it still requires the ability to parse grammatical phrases. Dogs can't do it.

I've learned that what dogs think when they hear a word may be very different from what we think. My wife and I learned by accident that when our dogs hear the word "kennel", they immediately find a quiet spot and lay down.

[DrBaltar]

The thought that only humans think is a fallacy along the lines of "The Earth is the center of the universe", or "There is no other life beyond the Earth", and probably began with the perception (before language was developed) that "Only I think".

[jimbob]

When I drive around my campus at night I see failures of instinctual thought vs. rational thought constantly (rabbits that are in perfectly good positions waiting until my vehicle is upon them to run in front of me, or killdeers taking flight to fly in front of my truck, but could these not be decisions that seem rational within the context of instinct or evolution for a prey species that would appear to be outside the scope of "thought" to beings that have the evolutionary baggage of being pray and predator as well as developing rational cognizance in flight or fight situations?

Yes,

Trucks wouldn't have been a hazard during most rabbit evolution, but predators would.

Although dodging is a way of avoiding being caught, immediately running at right angles to an approaching predator would just give it a chance to change direction, and might make it easier for it to catch such a rabbit...

How would an animal "know" that the truck will stay on the road?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

When tracking the ability to "think" across species, or how it's evolved per species, would time recognition (memory potential (past, present, future awareness) be as important an indicator as the thought processes themselves?

I would imagine language is needed to expand how far this thought window reaches into the past and future beyond a certain time (perhaps a days or two). Though it wouldn't have to be as complex as what we consider language today (think symbolic / simplistic / cave paintings).

Of course, even in humans, there is a broad range in the attention span from far-sighted to closed-minded. (Remember, far-sighted doesn't imply future or past in particular.)

Also, I wouldn't necessarily separate short term and long term memory specifically as we do with computers, but apply broader ranges and borders.

It seems basic life (like bacteria) just "go" (with set goals) with basically no thought. While an insect, like an ant, has a few options, but still basically no thought window beyond the immediate present. More evolved species reach farther into the past and future for information to use in the decisions they make on the options they encounter.

[Almo]

Although dodging is a way of avoiding being caught, immediately running at right angles to an approaching predator would just give it a chance to change direction, and might make it easier for it to catch such a rabbit...

THAT is a very good and interesting point.

Side note: Are posts like this one considered extraneous (and therefore shouldn't be made)? I've wondered this, finally get what seems a useful answer and I'd like to say something about it.

[nzric]

I think animals can learn a set of repetitive actions if it results in a positive outcome. Even an anthill can demonstrate a collective "mind" by sending messages throughout the population about food/danger and showing a purposeful response.

What would be "useful" behaviours from a survival point of view that could be viewed by humans as "thought"?
- Spatial awareness
- Basic consequence/cause and effect for social animals, i.e. a chimp thinking "if I give some of my food to Bobo, he grooms me. If I give some of my food to Tinkerbell, she doesn't groom me. It is better to give my food to Bobo"
- 'Rote' learning, e.g. hunting animals learning ways to stalk/bring down an animal, from their parents
- Medium-term memory, e.g. knowing which parts of the waterhole are dangerous because of past experience with crocodiles (this one is a big maybe..)

The only way to answer the question is to ask it in more detail. What do you mean by "thought"?

[quarky]

social insects, like a super colony of ants, act as a single collective mind. The individuals are 'stupid', but through collective feedback, the colony is intelligent. The mass of nuerons of the collective possibly outweigh the brains of humans, and the organism as a whole is nearly ageless. Somehow, these colonies even manage to not over-suceed...not destroy their food source. Quite amazing.
but does it (the colony) think?

[nzric]

Depends on your view about the Chinese Room.

I do not have, and never will have any evidence to show that you or any other humans have "thought". Other humans act like me, they respond to cues (if I punch someone he'll act as if I hurt him), but so does a robot, or a parrot. I will never absolutely know that you have a "self" like I view myself to have one.

The best we could do is figure out a Turing test for animals. What would an (imaginary?) animal that 'thinks' act like? would it be any different to existing animal behaviour? If my cat passes the animal-turing test, then it thinks.

[robinson]

The mass of nuerons of the collective possibly outweigh the brains of humans, and the organism as a whole is nearly ageless. Somehow, these colonies even manage to not over-suceed...not destroy their food source. Quite amazing.
but does it (the colony) think?

I'm pretty sure a definition of the word "think", in the context of the question, is an absolute requirement. Which only shunts the question onto another line of inquiry. How you define the word "think" only defines the word. If the definition includes neurons communicating, in a way that is intelligent and allows organisms to survive, build, avoid threats, and so forth, then a colony of ants thinks.

If you define think another way, they don't. What is the point?

[robinson]

Returning to the opening question:


I just wonder, can the more intelligent animals, like Apes and Dolphins actually think?

Think, like humans do? Or think in the way an Ape or a Dolphin does?

[Jeff Corey]

Returning to the opening question:



Think, like humans do? Or think in the way an Ape or a Dolphin does?

OK, what is it? I know that I think. Internal speech as I am composing this. Planning things, saying to myself that Monk is on in 8 minutes. No 7.. It is almost 6, Sorry, I have to polish the TV.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand that there is a Gorrilla somewhere that can actually express itself using sign language, which is quite extraordinary in my book.

I just wonder, can the more intelligent animals, like Apes and Dolphins actually think? I think I heard that Dolphins actually have their own language, or something like that. Seeing how Chimps can now prove themselves to have better memory than Humans, presumably there is some process going on in their minds that is beyond 'food ug. Mate ug ug.'Of course animals can think. Do you believe the theory of evolution or not? Think some single genetic change allowed humans to have instantly different brains?

I guess I don't quite get your question in light of common sense that our brains are just one more step along the evolutionary path.

Now as to language, there were 2 recent threads discussing the complicated issues surrounding animal use of language. If someone hasn't already posted a link, I hunt them down.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I remember reading many years ago about studies with dolphins where they (and maybe dogs, but I don't recall for sure) were the only animals that had shown the ability for "complex" language understanding. For example, you could tell them something like "take the red ball under the bar and then put it into the round hole," and they would be able to do it. Most animals can only comprehend simple statements like "red ball" but can't master the "unders" and "thens" and "intos." That's my basic recollection, and I'm sure I'm oversimplifying it, but as I said it was maybe 20 years ago.

I've also read some stuff that makes a lot of sense to me (and has been touched on by quarky) about our inability to really comprehend dolphin (and other marine mammal) intelligence because their environments are so alien to us, as is the way they perceive their environment. Their use of sonar means a very different way of translating incoming data, which could mean a very different brain process that we are unable to truly understand. We only test intelligence as we know it ourselves.Chimps and Bonobos are capable of complex sentence structure.

Back with the links in a few minutes....

[nzric]

It seems the question is redundant because the definition of "think" is too broad. As someone pointed out, yes, a dog thinks dog thoughts, a chimp thinks chimp thoughts.

Walrus, maybe you could change the question to "would some animal, aside from Humans, be able to..."

Understand the meaning of "ten minutes"?
Demonstrate gratitude?
Feel a desire for revenge?
Understand a metaphor?
Be moved by a piece of art?

[Skeptic Ginger]

There are a number of threads on this topic but the two I got the most involved in are linked here. Piggy's thread on Koko the gorilla started off a long discussion based on the fact the science behind Koko the gorilla's use of sign language was really bad. The main researcher was simply not using good scientific technique.

A second thread was going on at the same time which started off on how an article on parrot use of human taught language was being reported in some unreviewed web journal with silly claims the parrot was psychic. But there was other research with parrots that was legit just as there was other research with primates and language that was not absurd as the Koko science was.

But after looking further into the subject as a whole, and having my first absurd argument with CFLarsen, I found a wealth of properly conducted research in teaching non human primates human language.

Piggy remained skeptical and MangaFranga had some criticisms based on the finer points of syntax. I, on the other hand, found the evidence extremely compelling.

Here are my posts from both threads which have the links to the pertinent citations.

Psychic parrot? What are the BBC thinking? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71330)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2210361#post2210361
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2212928#post2212928
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2214193#post2214193
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2218395#post2218395
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2219178#post2219178
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2223277#post2223277


Science Hoax: Simian Sign-Language - Greatest Science Hoax Ever? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=65071)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2248304#post2248304
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2250774#post2250774
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2255615#post2255615
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2255915#post2255915
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2277989#post2277989
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2290424#post2290424

I think there is some good discussion about language and thought in the threads. Chomsky has a whole thesis on the concept. (Surprise, politics is his second career.)
Linguistic Contributions to the Study of Mind (http://www.chomsky.info/books/mind01.htm)
Introduction - James McGilvray - The Cambridge Companion to Chomsky, Cambridge, 2005 (http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/2005----.htm)
The 'Chomskyan Era' - Noam Chomsky - Excerpted from The Architecture of Language, 2000 (http://www.chomsky.info/books/architecture01.htm)


Clearly animal language not taught to them by us is qualitatively different from ours. But animals have to be having some kind of thought process going on without language. The parrot was able to tell numbers, colors and material of objects. It needed human words to tell us it knew those things. But to figure out how many and what color, etc requires thinking of some kind. And my dogs may have just learned what cues mean, but they have to be thinking something when they chase each other around the yard and wrestle for fun. It is completely different behavior than when they chase the critters out of the yard.

And when they hear their leash rattle, they start whining to go on their walk. They definitely know that is distinctly different from scratching the door to go out in the backyard or to get back in.

These are some of the links I found.
Ape Consciousness–Human Consciousness: A Perspective Informed by Language and Culture1 (http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/6/910)

"Uniquely human" component of language found in gregarious birds (http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060426.starling.shtml)

The videos on this link are excellent examples of novel use of language by Kanzi the Bonobo after being taught human language. They are short, and pretty interesting.
KANZI AND NOVEL SENTENCES & PANBANISHA DRAWS COFFEE (http://www.greatapetrust.org/research/general/panbanishaKanzi.php#)
http://www.greatapetrust.org/research/general/panbanishaKanzi.php#

[royniles]

All organisms think in order to move in concert with a calculating mechanism that predicts probable consequences of perceivable options.

But as to abstract thought, I don't think the stage of life has been identified where use of rudimentary symbols as a sort of "options" reference library first began.

We don't really know when organisms could be said to have no "language" by which to communicate with others either.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I bewildered as to why anyone would arrive at the idea that animals don't think. Of course they think. Why would anyone think otherwise? Obviously, other animals are less intelligent than humans (by our typical definition of intelligence) and it is clear that the capacity for abstract thought diminishes with brain size and complexity ultimately to a vanishing point, but it is nonsensical to suppose there is some quantum difference between human brain function and that of other animals. You can thank religion, I would guess, for this ridiculous idea that humans are of another order of being compared to all other life.
This was my first response but I think the question is more about thinking with language and thinking without language.

I certainly learned a boat full in the discussion we had about this. Mangafranga is a linguist of some kind. It took a while to think through the issues of how an animal without speech thinks.

My Mom is currently losing the ability to find the words to say the things she wants to say. And you would think she was confused. But after staying with her over Christmas, I realized she was a lot less confused than it appeared, she just couldn't find the words to tell us what she was thinking. She managed to show me lots of things she was unable to say. It was like communicating with someone who didn't speak your language.

Clearly thinking is not done completely with language. Language does however, completely change brain function once language develops. I think it is an amazing subject to contemplate.

But you are right that it is bizarre anyone could believe animals don't think just because they don't have language. I think the long held egocentric belief that humans were not animals has a lingering effect on many people's perceptions of the differences in animal thought. I was surprised that the obvious success teaching bonobos and chimps human language was not readily believed by a number of people looking at the same evidence I was looking at. Granted there was bad research out there like that with Koko the gorilla and sign language. And much of the early research had to be refined to rule out misinterpretations of the observations. But when you tell a Bonobo to take the TV outside and put the hat in the fridge (or whatever the novel commands are on the video) and you can see for yourself that's exactly what the ape does, it's hard to argue that animal isn't using language.

[Skeptic Ginger]

We have two border collies, and I have no doubt that they can think. As far as I can tell, though, their way of thinking differs from ours in two respects:

1. Their working memory (analogous to L1 or L2 cache in a computer) is smaller than ours, so they aren't good at solving problems that rely on working backwards from steps they just took. This explains why dogs seem incredibly stupid when they can't figure out how to unwind their leash from the tree they just wrapped themselved around.

2. They don't do deep processing, meaning that they take each situation as it is rather than interpreting it and extrapolating based on past experience. This is why, when I teach a dog to sit, the task "sit in the living room" is different from the task "sit in the back yard". They don't generalize well. This ability in humans is probably what allowed us to develop language.

Speaking of communication, it's a common misconception that dogs communicate verbally, as we do. They do SOME verbal communication, but it's really only needed when the dogs can't see each other. They have an enormous body-language vocabulary. For instance, the old saying "dogs can smell fear" actually arises from the dog's tendency to analyze our body language, often misinterpreting it because our body language is different from theirs. When we are afraid of a dog, it usually shows up in our body language in the form of stiff, deliberate movement. In dog language, stiffness is a sign that a dog is getting ready to attack. Naturally, this upsets the other dog, and he goes on the offensive.And yet dogs have an excellent long term memory for many things such as where they saw the bunny on the trail, which dogs they met their first year of life which they see as family and which dogs they didn't meet so see as 'not family', an owner who gave them up years later is still recognized, and so on.

[jimbob]

skeptigirl, have you read any books by Frans de Waal? You might like them...

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, but I just Amazoned a couple and they look excellent. I'll have to read a couple of them.