Actually, I don't think I agree with the statement that there's "no question but that humans can do something with their brains which other mammals cannot". By which I mean, the statement may be correct, but I can't put my finger on such a thing, and I know that some people argue that it's not true. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "abstract" - but there's also the problem that it would be hard to know if some types of abstract thought were happening - because there might not be any external evidence.
For a start though, there's plenty of examples of toolmaking activity in animals. Some of this is pretty simple - for example, Jane Goodall's original example of a chimpanzee stripping a stick to make it a better prod for getting ants out of an ant hill (http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/gombe/tool.asp), but there have been some much more convincing examples since then - for example, a crow making a hook out of wire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm). Making a tool requires some degree of lateral thinking, and an ability to approach a problem from multiple angles, which seems pretty abstract to me.
Language is also something pretty abstract, but there's plenty of evidence for language being used by some primates - some researchers even claiming that vervet monkeys combine several words together to make sentences - some discussion of this is at http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/language.htm
There's plenty of evidence of problem solving abilities - for example, Louise tells a story of a chimpanzee she watched in a zoo building a pile of stones to raise an electric fence out of the way to get at some leaves on the other side of it.
Chimpanzees in captivity have been known to produce what I'd certainly call art: for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/12/arts.artsnews
There's little convincing evidence of religious activity (but, what _would_ be convincing) - but, for example, the complex art made by Bower birds would probably be called "ritual" if done by humans, and certainly involves a large amount of planning. The video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbWJPsBPdA has a good example of a bower, but there are plenty of other examples on the web.
It used to be thought that only humans used tools - but then examples of tool use were found. After that, if was thought that only humans make tools - but then examples of tool making were found. It used to be thought that only humans could use language to communicate - but lots of examples of what can only be called language are now known. I'd be wary of any claim that there's something qualitatively unique about the capabilities of humans.
I'm happy to settle for quantitative uniqueness: various animals may be able to do each of these things a little bit, but we do all of them at once, in an almost organised fashion, to a far greater extent.
Unless you seriously think that some other mammal would have been just as capable as Homo sapiens of building up a technological civilisation given the motivation and/or resources and without requiring any further evolution from its current state, I think this is still quibbling at my wording. Interesting quibbling though it is :-)
There's no question in my mind that humans do all these things to a greater extent than other animals, and I'm very dubious that other animals could equal human thought given the appropriate motivation (though I'm not sure what such motivation would be). And I'm certainly just quibbling with your wording to an extent. My serious point is that we shouldn't assume we're unique without due consideration of what being unique actually would mean.
(though I'm not sure what such motivation would be)
I mostly mentioned motivation there in order to pre-emptively rule out the Douglas Adams dolphin argument: in case anyone tried to argue that some other species was more intelligent than us because they didn't build up a technological civilisation, or that they were intelligent enough to do what they wanted to get done and that was all that was important. The key test is whether they could have done what we did if they'd wanted to; if it were shown that they could have and they deliberately chose not to, then I'd concede the point.
I generally agree on your wider point -- intelligence seems to be a continuum we happen to be at the high end of -- but on this specific point:
plenty of evidence for language being used by some primates
I don't believe this, for any meaningful definition of 'language'. Learning that certain gestures result in your keepers bringing you a banana isn't language. Producing a random string of signs which your trainers over-interpret as meaningful isn't language. Bee dances aren't language either. I think there's a real qualitative difference between various things that other species do and the human ability to combine abstract symbols in accordance with grammatical rules to communicate opinions, ask questions and all the rest of it. A lot of the 'animal language' stuff is really just animals using vocal or hand gestures at the tool-use level to get what they want. Other primates aren't just bad at grammar -- they can't do it _at all_.
The evidence discussed for animals using language in that language log posting is most unconvincing, I agree.
I'm not sure how I'd define language, but one thing I think I'd consider can only happen with language is communicating a description of a novel change in the environment.
The primary evidence I was thinking came from an anecdote in a biological anthropology lecture, and relates to vervet monkeys in the wild - unfortunately I couldn't find a reference to it with a quick google search, but the assertion was that vervet monkeys make up new warning calls for new potential predators by combining existing calls. Probably the reason that I couldn't find a reference to this is that it was anecdotal and controversial, of course. Indeed, the only agreement that I can find is that vervets have distinct warning calls for "leopard", "snake" and eagle, and it's hard to see how a combination of these calls could be descriptive, rather than just the monkey being unsure which warning call to use.
Perhaps I'd be on stronger ground if I hadn't included the word "plenty". On searching around a bit more, there seems to be plenty of debate on the subject, and very little consensus.
Interesting points, though, thanks. I wish I had more time to investigate the subject properly...
I feel very strongly that what separates us from animals is a quantitative rather than a qualitative difference — and not a very large quantitative difference at that. Indeed, if you read Jared Diamond's works it becomes clear the extent to which human progress depends on the right environmental conditions as well as our innate abilities. Explaining why some human civilisations achieved so much more than others requires one to understand the importance of East-West migratory routes, the horse, a relatively placid sea surrounded by crinkly land masses and lots of other things EMEA has and other areas lack.
Tribespeople from Guinea have been known to go from undeveloped to qualifying as commercial pilots within a generation. Then again, we can also teach a dog to cross a road safely.
The smartest non-human animals are capable of a lot more than the dumbest humans. It's legal to serve as dinner creatures more intelligent than the dumbest humans.
Essentially a threadjack, but Michael Tomasello makes an excellent case (http://www.2think.org/humancognition.shtml) that the major difference between humans and other animals is something he calls the "ratchet effect" of culture and literacy, such that useful things learned don't need to be either discovered anew by each generation or biologically inherited.
Tomasello works with great apes and small children, especially on language acquisition. He’s very anti-Chomsky and anti-Pinker in his conclusions, if you're familiar with those two, but he doesn’t condemn them much in his arguments.
I'm with you on this one... bee's are another species that have a clear language, though it is a sign language. They use intricate dances to tell the bees back at the hive the location of the source of nectar they found, so the rest can go there alone.
I love the crow-wire/hook experiment.
Mostly it annoys me how people automatically think they are so superior to animal, whereas really we're just different, as all animals are from each other. There are a lot of interesting experiments on animal intelligence, but there's a lot of stabbing in the dark still...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
For a start though, there's plenty of examples of toolmaking activity in animals. Some of this is pretty simple - for example, Jane Goodall's original example of a chimpanzee stripping a stick to make it a better prod for getting ants out of an ant hill (http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/chimpanzees/gombe/tool.asp), but there have been some much more convincing examples since then - for example, a crow making a hook out of wire (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2178920.stm). Making a tool requires some degree of lateral thinking, and an ability to approach a problem from multiple angles, which seems pretty abstract to me.
Language is also something pretty abstract, but there's plenty of evidence for language being used by some primates - some researchers even claiming that vervet monkeys combine several words together to make sentences - some discussion of this is at http://www.pigeon.psy.tufts.edu/psych26/language.htm
There's plenty of evidence of problem solving abilities - for example, Louise tells a story of a chimpanzee she watched in a zoo building a pile of stones to raise an electric fence out of the way to get at some leaves on the other side of it.
Chimpanzees in captivity have been known to produce what I'd certainly call art: for example http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/may/12/arts.artsnews
There's little convincing evidence of religious activity (but, what _would_ be convincing) - but, for example, the complex art made by Bower birds would probably be called "ritual" if done by humans, and certainly involves a large amount of planning. The video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbWJPsBPdA has a good example of a bower, but there are plenty of other examples on the web.
It used to be thought that only humans used tools - but then examples of tool use were found. After that, if was thought that only humans make tools - but then examples of tool making were found. It used to be thought that only humans could use language to communicate - but lots of examples of what can only be called language are now known. I'd be wary of any claim that there's something qualitatively unique about the capabilities of humans.
Unless you seriously think that some other mammal would have been just as capable as Homo sapiens of building up a technological civilisation given the motivation and/or resources and without requiring any further evolution from its current state, I think this is still quibbling at my wording. Interesting quibbling though it is :-)
There's no question in my mind that humans do all these things to a greater extent than other animals, and I'm very dubious that other animals could equal human thought given the appropriate motivation (though I'm not sure what such motivation would be). And I'm certainly just quibbling with your wording to an extent. My serious point is that we shouldn't assume we're unique without due consideration of what being unique actually would mean.
I mostly mentioned motivation there in order to pre-emptively rule out the Douglas Adams dolphin argument: in case anyone tried to argue that some other species was more intelligent than us because they didn't build up a technological civilisation, or that they were intelligent enough to do what they wanted to get done and that was all that was important. The key test is whether they could have done what we did if they'd wanted to; if it were shown that they could have and they deliberately chose not to, then I'd concede the point.
I generally agree on your wider point -- intelligence seems to be a continuum we happen to be at the high end of -- but on this specific point:
I don't believe this, for any meaningful definition of 'language'. Learning that certain gestures result in your keepers bringing you a banana isn't language. Producing a random string of signs which your trainers over-interpret as meaningful isn't language. Bee dances aren't language either. I think there's a real qualitative difference between various things that other species do and the human ability to combine abstract symbols in accordance with grammatical rules to communicate opinions, ask questions and all the rest of it. A lot of the 'animal language' stuff is really just animals using vocal or hand gestures at the tool-use level to get what they want. Other primates aren't just bad at grammar -- they can't do it _at all_.
This elderly language log posting expresses a similar view.
I'm not sure how I'd define language, but one thing I think I'd consider can only happen with language is communicating a description of a novel change in the environment.
The primary evidence I was thinking came from an anecdote in a biological anthropology lecture, and relates to vervet monkeys in the wild - unfortunately I couldn't find a reference to it with a quick google search, but the assertion was that vervet monkeys make up new warning calls for new potential predators by combining existing calls. Probably the reason that I couldn't find a reference to this is that it was anecdotal and controversial, of course. Indeed, the only agreement that I can find is that vervets have distinct warning calls for "leopard", "snake" and eagle, and it's hard to see how a combination of these calls could be descriptive, rather than just the monkey being unsure which warning call to use.
Perhaps I'd be on stronger ground if I hadn't included the word "plenty". On searching around a bit more, there seems to be plenty of debate on the subject, and very little consensus.
Interesting points, though, thanks. I wish I had more time to investigate the subject properly...
Tribespeople from Guinea have been known to go from undeveloped to qualifying as commercial pilots within a generation. Then again, we can also teach a dog to cross a road safely.
The smartest non-human animals are capable of a lot more than the dumbest humans. It's legal to serve as dinner creatures more intelligent than the dumbest humans.
Me, I'm vegetarian.
Tomasello works with great apes and small children, especially on language acquisition. He’s very anti-Chomsky and anti-Pinker in his conclusions, if you're familiar with those two, but he doesn’t condemn them much in his arguments.
bee's are another species that have a clear language, though it is a sign language. They use intricate dances to tell the bees back at the hive the location of the source of nectar they found, so the rest can go there alone.
I love the crow-wire/hook experiment.
Mostly it annoys me how people automatically think they are so superior to animal, whereas really we're just different, as all animals are from each other. There are a lot of interesting experiments on animal intelligence, but there's a lot of stabbing in the dark still...