
How Animals Think - alexandrerond
http://theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/05/how-animals-think/476364/?single_page=true
======
proc0
The article seems to push the idea that we think less of animals and that
should change, but I don't think it's clear that the motive behind us humans
pulverizing the animal kingdom is because we think we're superior to them. The
reasons are mostly that they have stuff we want, and we just ... take it. For
millions of years we've used fire to burn their tasty meat, and tools to shred
them into usefulness, so it's pretty clear we're at the top at their expense.
At the same time, we can see our ancestors (and still many natives around the
world) held a deep connection to nature.

I don't think the problem is not recognizing the complexity of the animal
mind, especially mammals. The problem is that we can't stop. Nothing has
stopped humans in the past, and now feeling sorry won't change anything
either. We can just hope technology will outgrow the pace of our need to
exploit animals, because I don't think it will stop otherwise if we're
realistic. We'll quickly recognize animal minds, and eat them without a
problem, unless we get some lab steak.

~~~
sdegutis
But there's no _need_ to stop. Animals kill and eat other animals without any
guilt. We're doing the same thing, only more efficiently. That said, we should
have stricter rules on treating food animals better, which has proven to
produce better food anyway.

~~~
ewzimm
Are you implying that if animals treated each other better, we would be
obliged to do so as well? Are animals now our role models? I thought it was
the other way around, that we valued our unique human cultures with our ideas
of ethics and reciprocity over our primitive instincts for survival. If it's
the case that we should be emulating animals, maybe we should rethink this
whole civilization thing.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
Reciprocity requires, well, _reciprocity_ , a two-sided relationship. Only
some animals have shown themselves capable of any moral relations with humans.

Just pointing out.

~~~
ewzimm
Yes, you're right. To clarify, I was talking about the injection of ethics
into relationships. The concept here is that animals treat each other in a
certain way, a lack of reciprocity, and so we should follow their lead and act
the same way. The implication is that if no reciprocity is offered initially,
we should never take the initiative to create that kind of mutually beneficial
relationship, the "Eye for an Eye" mentality. However, we have thousands of
years of development of ideas of ethical behavior, and while there are many
different takes on it, the majority have some version of the "Golden Rule,"
that we should take the initiative to create a symbiotic relationship rather
than meet every hostile action with an equally hostile action. This is
motivated not just by blind obedience to a moral principle but also the kind
of environment it creates. If we always opt for hostility, we create a hostile
and unlivable environment, not just toward the object of our hostility but in
our mindset and culture. If we choose to nurture a symbiotic relationship with
others and everything in our environment, we at least take the first steps
toward a better situation for everyone involved, especially us. Although most
animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme examples like
dogs to show that it is possible over generations.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>Although most animals might not show reciprocity now, we can look at extreme
examples like dogs to show that it is possible over generations.

Wolves are social mammals in the first place. The creation of dogs amounted to
deliberately taming and selectively breeding wolves who would understand ever-
more-slightly humanoid social structures in place of their previous wolf
social structures. Even now, a dog does _not_ carry a fully human sense of
reciprocity and equality, merely a very nurturing and cooperative concept of
pack-structure.

(Actually, even now, most _humans_ don't carry a fully human sense of
reciprocity and equality. Most humans are more like the dogs than we care to
admit in terms of which social structures we've trained them to understand:
hierarchy and one-way domination over reciprocity and equality remain the
human norm when we leave our armchairs.)

Since many animals are not even social mammals, I think it would take radical
measures to instill them with a humanoid moral sense capable of reciprocity,
and that brings on its own ethical issues.

~~~
meric
I don't even think they were "created by deliberately taming and selectively
breeding" in the beginning. There were wolves, who voluntarily hung around
human camps in a friendly manner, and those wolves being close to each other
were more likely to mate. Same with cats. It's voluntary reciprocation.

If the animals would rather stay away, then I think we should not approach
them on purpose with the intention of taming them, with the exception where
they or their homes being targeted by other humans, for example pandas, and
they have nowhere to go.

------
Omnus
_Psychologists often assume that there is a special cognitive ability—a
psychological secret sauce—that makes humans different from other animals. The
list of candidates is long: tool use, cultural transmission, the ability to
imagine the future or to understand other minds, and so on. But every one of
these abilities shows up in at least some other species in at least some
form._

I'll have to read the book to see if De Waal addresses this issue differently
- but there is one glaring omission here that seems to destroy the entire
argument. Human language and internal thought (the infinite use of finite
means) appears to be entirely unprecedented in nature. This ability appears to
gives rise to our heightened creativity and ability to model and understand
the world. It is usually the first thing mentioned when psychologists talk
about a "special cognitive ability" or "secret sauce", so you would have to
address it if you want to make a reasonable point here.

 _...a better way to think about other creatures would be to ask ourselves how
different species have developed different kinds of minds to solve different
adaptive problems. Surely the important question is not whether an octopus or
a crow can do the same things a human can, but how those animals solve the
cognitive problems they face_

Humans can solve problems beyond those faced in their immediate environment
for survival purposes - that is the key mystery that causes us to compare
other animals to ourselves. Sure, we should strive to understand the ways in
which an octopus solves the problems it faces, but there is nothing wrong with
asking how close it is to our own abilities in this regard.

~~~
yqx
I'm sure De Waal addresses this in more detail in his book, but the omission
is perhaps less glaring and capable of destroying the entire argument as you
present it to be.

Although it is clear that human language is unique and appears much more
developed than any animal communication system observed in nature, _no one
knows what exactly property of language makes it unique_. Indeed, infinite use
of finite means, or syntactic structure are often put forward as candidates
but syntax and generativity have also been observed in bird song. We simply
don't know what the defining feature is that sets language apart from animal
communication systems.

Similarly, we can't identify the unique cognitive ability that differentiates
us from other animals. Since, as De Waal points out, humans are genetically
speaking _very_ close to our nearest sibling species, and we simply don't
understand what precisely makes us cognitively different from, say Bonobos,
the standard assumption should not be that we're somehow gifted with very
special cognitive abilities, but that animal cognition is much more similar to
our own cognition than is often assumed. Rather than studying where animal
cognition, especially in genetically related species, resembles human
cognition, we should be studying where it differs from human cognition.

Keep in mind that anatomically modern humans have only been around for two
hundred thousand years, and the explosion of human culture only happened
around ten thousand years ago. Not a lot of time for massive evolutionary
changes.

~~~
Omnus
My original comment was not just about communication, so I'm not sure what
bird calls have to do with any of this. Even so, it is unclear if birds
actually have infinite use of finite means in the expressively meaningful way
humans do. Regardless, language's communicative ability is only one part of
the uniqueness of human capabilities - birds clearly do not have the
thought/reasoning capabilities (to which language is tightly entwined) that we
do.

We can point to behaviors that are unique to us. Since these behaviors must
have some cognitive basis, they can serve to tell us how different we are.
There is clearly a reason that no other animals understand abstract math or
build rockets that fly into space. We simply haven't seen any evidence of
other animals creating new knowledge and explanations using internal, rational
thought in the way that humans do.

The original point of my post was simply to suggest that there is, in fact, a
"psychological secret sauce" that makes humans different from other animals.
We don't yet understand the nature of this secret sauce, but this should not
preclude us from doing the things that De Waal wants to do: to understand
animals on their own terms and avoid treating them like "defective adult
humans" simply because their brains are different.

> _Rather than studying where animal cognition, especially in genetically
> related species, resembles human cognition, we should be studying where it
> differs from human cognition._

I am unaware of any scientists that think we shouldn't study where animal
cognition differs from human cognition. There is no reason to favor
differences over similarities, they can both give insights.

------
DanielBMarkham
This is intellectually dangerous ground, as the author points out, mainly
because it asks us to reason -- to form a theory of mind -- about creatures
who have minds significantly different than our own. As the author also points
out, it's easy to fall into either the scoffer or booster categories: we
either want to dismiss animal intelligence completely or overstate it.

So when I got to this, _" a psychological secret sauce—that makes humans
different from other animals. The list of candidates is long: tool use,
cultural transmission, the ability to imagine the future or to understand
other minds, and so on. But every one of these abilities shows up in at least
some other species in at least some form."_

I had to bail out. No other species has a true persistent language. Yes, bits
and pieces are here and there -- there's no doubt animals communicate,
sometimes even about complex things. And there very well be some sort of oral
history. But true language in the way we use it? (Insert long discussion here
about what that means)

Nope. So this article comes down into the "modified booster" category: it's so
amazing and special _simply because we don 't understand it all_

I honestly believe that what our species needs is a sliding scale of
sentience. You can call that a ladder if you want, but no matter how you do
it? I'm not going to eat a monkey, but I'd eat a cow. Or a fish. Somehow we
need to sort that all out, and whether that involves a complex web of
indicators or not, the result is going to be a sliding scale, like it or not.

~~~
mbrock
How do you create this scale of sentience though?

I really have no idea "what it's like to be a cow."

What fact, theory, or experience convinces you that a cow's life is
significantly less sentient than a monkey? (I'm genuinely curious.)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Or a bumblebee, right?

Beats me. I've given it some thought, and I could speculate.

My point was to separate that part out, though. Acknowledging that there must
be a scale is the first step. Once we go there, then we can start talking
about what goes into producing one. Some folks don't even want to go there (as
this article implies)

Being _conscious_ , in my mind, is the ability to observe information and
change your mental model of the world based on it. If that definition works,
then animals are certainly conscious.

Perhaps _sentience_ is the ability to do that as a community, over time, and
about abstract concepts. Monkeys might be able to locate new sticks in their
environment, use them to spear fish, and pass that to their offspring. But
they couldn't formulate a theory of virtue over several generations. (At least
I don't think so) Perhaps that definition is a starting point?

(Just trying to provide you with some kind of answer)

~~~
hodwik
> "Being conscious, in my mind, is the ability to observe information and
> change your mental model of the world based on it."

Neural networks aren't conscious. Consciousness requires that a locus of ego
experiences sensations of qualia.

Just because something is intelligent doesn't mean it is conscious.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I tentatively agree, but this may end up being a distinction without a
difference, i.e. if something appears conscious because it's intelligent, for
all the outside world can say, it _is_ conscious.

I believe strong AI is going to solve this question over the next several
decades.

~~~
meric
Intelligence can be unaware. Often they call algorithms "artificial
intelligence".

Consciousness cannot be unaware.

Given only a limited set of inputs in a limited space, (e.g. r, g, b, a
channels in a jpeg image, and a limited set of filters to separate cats from
monkeys), modern neural networks are hardly aware, so they're hardly
conscious.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_Given only a limited set of inputs in a limited space..._

I believe you are making the edge case here, simply because that's where our
technology is.

The alternate position is that given a _rather_ larger set of inputs, over a
_rather_ larger space, an intelligence could appear to outsiders as being as
conscious ans sentient as they are, even though what we're talking about
"under the hood" is some simulacrum of sentience, not sentience as we humans
experience it.

This is the "if a computer plays chess as well as a human, is the computer
really playing chess? Or just mechanically moving things around?"

My point is that with some larger solution space, the question doesn't matter
anymore.

~~~
hodwik2
> "My point is that with some larger solution space, the question doesn't
> matter anymore."

The question still matters ethically. If they're not aware, should we put
their rights over the rights of humans? Probably not, no.

E.g., If AI is seemingly intelligent, but without consciousness, we wouldn't
want to give them a right to self defense.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
I understand your question, but I do not currently understand how to process
your question.

If I look at something and it has quality A, is it any different to me than if
I look at another, fake thing, that also has quality A?

If every way I examine it, it is the same, is it not the same? At least to me?

We are entering the realm of the unknown, perhaps the Great Unknown. Here we
cannot reason. It's not rational. It's not irrational. It's trans-rational.

Sidebar: I'll note that you mention consciousness. There is a strong reason
why I attempted to define consciousness ahead of sentience. The latter is
dependent on the former. Both definitions are controversial.

ADD: It occurs to me that some kind of religion and alien contact are
intractably linked, both from our side and from the other side. Interesting.

------
hyperpallium
Intelligence is useful, so evolutionary pressure has increased it in humans,
dolphins, corvids, octopii, etc. Perhaps it just takes time for the pressure
to give results - and we just happened to be first?

But it may be that some _particular_ evolutionary pressure or circumstance is
required to get our kind of intelligence (ie the problem is demand, not
supply). It's been argued that _exchange_ (trade) supplied that pressure. It
requires intelligence, and therefore amplifies the value of intelligence.

So, when corvids start to exchange, just wait a few million years, and we'll
have some homegrown alien intelligences.

~~~
egjerlow
I think the point the article was trying to make was that 'our kind of
intelligence' is neither a single, well-defined entity - for example, the
author points out that chimps might be more 'politically' intelligent than
ourselves - nor is it likely to be _one_ thing that made us into what we are
("Thinking seriously about evolutionary cognition may also help us stop
looking for a single magic ingredient that explains how human intelligence
emerged").

If this hypothesis is true, other species might not necessarily display 'our
kind' of intelligence, even given time, because they are in different contexts
than ourselves, and introducing a single phenomenon (say, trade), is then
unlikely to produce beings who think similarly to ourselves.

~~~
hyperpallium
Note I said " _alien_ intelligences" :)

It's hard to know how different or in what way without a decent sample size.

But the similarity I anticipate is our reflexivity, we can think about
ourselves, our actions, our plans, others - even about thinking. We have an
ability to abstract that is lacking in animals, and it would be pretty obvious
if they had it because it's so useful, Though surely some species or
individuals have its beginings or precursors - it just hasn't taken off yet.

This reflexivity/abstraction reminds me of the Chomsky formal language
hierarchy. Regular expressions are very useful but less powerful than context
free grammars. And once you get to recursively enumerable, anything is
possible. A similarity is that each non-terminal in a CFG generates a
language, and can be used to define other languages - each is a level of
abstraction.

BTW I'm partial to the idea that spiders may be the next intelligence, as the
brain-body ratio is off the chart (because they're small, yes...). But they
aren't social.

tl;dr I disagree with the article that other animals' intelligences are not
less, just different. We have something better. Though it won't always be so.
Of course, there are many other facets of our intelligence - our long term
memory, motor skill memory, working memory, language ability, visual
processing etc - that we are very strong in; I think mostly the best. It's
hard to know how important they are to "our kind of intelligence" (which I
think there is a clear definition of, given above).

------
jessriedel
Can't we just have one popular article about science that isn't sold as a
story about a small upstart group of researchers overturning those antiquated
ways of thinking? It's so painful and divorced from reality.

------
gooseyard
Another very good article on this topic, by Daniel Dennett

[http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/dennett_anim_csness.ht...](http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/dennett_anim_csness.html)

