Chapter 1 Mental Lives of Animals
The tendency to view animals as being people is called antropomorphism and this seems to
live in many people. Many questions of animal cognition are antropocentric, they are fueled by a
view towards animals from a human perspective and questions about human-like abilities being
projected on animals.
What about mind, mental life, thoughts and intelligence in animals? If mind is seen as
something together with mental life it can refer to the totality of animal behaviour and perhaps more
complex cognitions. Thought might imply language and it’s hard to discus whether animals have
language. Therefore thought can be very much discussed about. Intelligence is equally difficult.
Intelligence can be seen as the ability to solve novel problems, however conditioning and old
behaviour can also solve these problems. It is hard to test this in non-humans and there are
explanations possible on complexe cognition level as well as on the level of basal mechanisms. There
are different ways to research this like cognitivism or comparative psychology. Lastly there is
cognition, which is equally hard and can be explained by the previously noted terms. In this book it is
used as describing the full richness of animal behaviour and the very complex forms of behaviour.
Historical background: Darwin, Wallace and the minds of beast is not summarized. History is handy to
know and to elaborate to summary effectively.
Two tales of caution are Clever Hans and Lloyd morgan’s canon. Clever hans is the story of a
horse that was claimed to have higher cognition and an understanding of numbers and could count.
However the horse could pick up subtle hints in body language towards his answer and via this way
the horse could give the correct answer making it seem as if it was able to count.
Lloyd morgan’s canon is already very old (1894) however it’s still in use. It is a word of
caution that calls to be carefull with claiming cognition. If complex behaviour can be described by
more basal mechanisms and would be an equally valid reasoning than one cannot claim that the
complex behaviour is an argument for cognition. Thus, don’t interpret behaviour immediatly as the
act of higher complex mechanisms if it can be explained with basal mechanisms.
Chapter 2 Other minds, Other matters
Theory of mind is the ability to understand or have ideas of what goes on in another
individuals mind. Another aspect is having ideas about one’s own motivations or reflective self-
consciousness. We call this self-awareness, the ability to have theories about your own mind.
Developing decent tests for theoryof mind in non-humans are far from easy to develop.
Observations in behaviour might hint self-awareness and theory of mind. (see D. Cheney & R.
Seyfrath 1990; vervet monkey Kitui: Leopard alarm call). (Other story from Cheney & Seyfarth;
Baboons: Females and tails with dominant males.)
Observations in the wild are difficult evidence for theory of mind. Where one might find an
interpretation that claims they have theory of mind, another can find an alternatieve explanation for
the shown behaviour.
Imitation occurs when one sees another individual obtain a desired goal via a certain
sequence of actions, and thus copies the exact same sequence of actions to obtain that desired goal.
Imitation seems simple, but there are many forms that look like imitation, but are not true imitation.
A subtle case that can be confused with imitation is Stimulus enhancement. The interest for a certain
object or action is increased, because of an observation of another individual interact with that
object or performing that action. Therefor one might act on this interest and try to do the same.
(Research by K. Lorenze 1973; Ducks: Passing through a hole in the fence).
, Another case that can be confused with imitation is Social faciliatation. This is a spontaneous
tendency to imitate each other without the need for deeper reasons nor an understanding of the
motivation of another to perform the action.
To test true imitation several experiments were designed. One is the bidirectional control procedure
is a test to search for true imitation. It involves two individuals of the same species, and one of the
two performs a task in a box where the other can see the actions. The other individual could see the
actions and the given reward. Mostly the other individual would perform the same actions as were
seen to obtain the wanted reward. Details in box 2.2 page 22 and 23.
Recognition of one self is also a way to test cognition in animals. This can be done via mirror
reflection. If an individual sees his/her reflection does the individual know that he/she is that
reflection. Think about the mark-test. Prosopagnosic patients are unable to recognize faces or
people, yet would you say they don’t have self-awareness. It is hard to discus whether one does or
does not have self-awareness. However because there is a way to damage recognition of others and
self, there seems to be a biological component in recognition and self-awareness. There have been
conducted quite some tests with animals to search for self-awareness with the mirror recognition
test. These are explained from page 23 to 26.
One way to determine theory is mind in people is to test if they can reason about another
persons motivations. There have been some experiments to test theory of mind in animals. A chimp
was sitting behind a screen in a lab and was shown by an assistant where the food was. Then another
assistant enters, both assistants point towards a spot where they say that the food is hidden. Chimps
were able to follow the cooperative assistant. This research has been taken as evidence for theory of
mind in animals, however there are quite some possible errors to be found. Another experiment by
Pivonelli (1990) tried to get a better research. A chimp was shown four cups and then the food was
hidden by an assistant under a cup, which is the knower and then an other assistant enters and
guesses the cup with the food. Two of four chimps learnt to follow the knower. This experiment as
well can have some critical questions and improvements. In another experiment chimps were given
the option to beg for food from two assistants, one was blindfolded and could not see the begging
gesture and the other could. The chimps were equally likely to beg either assistant for food. This can
be seen as evidence for not having a theory of mind. However Hare (2000) indicates that chimps can
use information of what another chimp can see or cannot. In this experiment food was placed in such
a matter that either one or both chimps could see the food. One chimp was dominant over the other
one. The dominant one would always win if both could see the food. However in another test they
placed the food in such a way that one piece of food could be seen by both and one could only be
seen by the subordinate chimp. The subordinate chimp would than prefer the piece of food the
dominant one could not see. Because of this Hare proposses that the errors were mostly because
human trainers were involved and not members of the same species. Clearly the question still
remains how much different species understand the implications of what another individual can
percieve or think.
Conlcusion of this chapter is on pages 29 & 30.
Chapter 3 Detecting Cause and Effect
Detecting cause and effect is a simple ability, however so versatile that it can be extremely
useful in survival. This is called associative learning and means that one can associatate occurance A
with consequence B. Also called Conditioning. Conditioning can be split in two types, Classical
conditioning (aka pavlovian conditioning) or Instrumental conditioning. There is a great benefit to be
achieved by detecting cause and effect, knowing when to expect predators or knowing what effect
your actions have in certain situations might influence future behaviour. Detecting cause and effect
The tendency to view animals as being people is called antropomorphism and this seems to
live in many people. Many questions of animal cognition are antropocentric, they are fueled by a
view towards animals from a human perspective and questions about human-like abilities being
projected on animals.
What about mind, mental life, thoughts and intelligence in animals? If mind is seen as
something together with mental life it can refer to the totality of animal behaviour and perhaps more
complex cognitions. Thought might imply language and it’s hard to discus whether animals have
language. Therefore thought can be very much discussed about. Intelligence is equally difficult.
Intelligence can be seen as the ability to solve novel problems, however conditioning and old
behaviour can also solve these problems. It is hard to test this in non-humans and there are
explanations possible on complexe cognition level as well as on the level of basal mechanisms. There
are different ways to research this like cognitivism or comparative psychology. Lastly there is
cognition, which is equally hard and can be explained by the previously noted terms. In this book it is
used as describing the full richness of animal behaviour and the very complex forms of behaviour.
Historical background: Darwin, Wallace and the minds of beast is not summarized. History is handy to
know and to elaborate to summary effectively.
Two tales of caution are Clever Hans and Lloyd morgan’s canon. Clever hans is the story of a
horse that was claimed to have higher cognition and an understanding of numbers and could count.
However the horse could pick up subtle hints in body language towards his answer and via this way
the horse could give the correct answer making it seem as if it was able to count.
Lloyd morgan’s canon is already very old (1894) however it’s still in use. It is a word of
caution that calls to be carefull with claiming cognition. If complex behaviour can be described by
more basal mechanisms and would be an equally valid reasoning than one cannot claim that the
complex behaviour is an argument for cognition. Thus, don’t interpret behaviour immediatly as the
act of higher complex mechanisms if it can be explained with basal mechanisms.
Chapter 2 Other minds, Other matters
Theory of mind is the ability to understand or have ideas of what goes on in another
individuals mind. Another aspect is having ideas about one’s own motivations or reflective self-
consciousness. We call this self-awareness, the ability to have theories about your own mind.
Developing decent tests for theoryof mind in non-humans are far from easy to develop.
Observations in behaviour might hint self-awareness and theory of mind. (see D. Cheney & R.
Seyfrath 1990; vervet monkey Kitui: Leopard alarm call). (Other story from Cheney & Seyfarth;
Baboons: Females and tails with dominant males.)
Observations in the wild are difficult evidence for theory of mind. Where one might find an
interpretation that claims they have theory of mind, another can find an alternatieve explanation for
the shown behaviour.
Imitation occurs when one sees another individual obtain a desired goal via a certain
sequence of actions, and thus copies the exact same sequence of actions to obtain that desired goal.
Imitation seems simple, but there are many forms that look like imitation, but are not true imitation.
A subtle case that can be confused with imitation is Stimulus enhancement. The interest for a certain
object or action is increased, because of an observation of another individual interact with that
object or performing that action. Therefor one might act on this interest and try to do the same.
(Research by K. Lorenze 1973; Ducks: Passing through a hole in the fence).
, Another case that can be confused with imitation is Social faciliatation. This is a spontaneous
tendency to imitate each other without the need for deeper reasons nor an understanding of the
motivation of another to perform the action.
To test true imitation several experiments were designed. One is the bidirectional control procedure
is a test to search for true imitation. It involves two individuals of the same species, and one of the
two performs a task in a box where the other can see the actions. The other individual could see the
actions and the given reward. Mostly the other individual would perform the same actions as were
seen to obtain the wanted reward. Details in box 2.2 page 22 and 23.
Recognition of one self is also a way to test cognition in animals. This can be done via mirror
reflection. If an individual sees his/her reflection does the individual know that he/she is that
reflection. Think about the mark-test. Prosopagnosic patients are unable to recognize faces or
people, yet would you say they don’t have self-awareness. It is hard to discus whether one does or
does not have self-awareness. However because there is a way to damage recognition of others and
self, there seems to be a biological component in recognition and self-awareness. There have been
conducted quite some tests with animals to search for self-awareness with the mirror recognition
test. These are explained from page 23 to 26.
One way to determine theory is mind in people is to test if they can reason about another
persons motivations. There have been some experiments to test theory of mind in animals. A chimp
was sitting behind a screen in a lab and was shown by an assistant where the food was. Then another
assistant enters, both assistants point towards a spot where they say that the food is hidden. Chimps
were able to follow the cooperative assistant. This research has been taken as evidence for theory of
mind in animals, however there are quite some possible errors to be found. Another experiment by
Pivonelli (1990) tried to get a better research. A chimp was shown four cups and then the food was
hidden by an assistant under a cup, which is the knower and then an other assistant enters and
guesses the cup with the food. Two of four chimps learnt to follow the knower. This experiment as
well can have some critical questions and improvements. In another experiment chimps were given
the option to beg for food from two assistants, one was blindfolded and could not see the begging
gesture and the other could. The chimps were equally likely to beg either assistant for food. This can
be seen as evidence for not having a theory of mind. However Hare (2000) indicates that chimps can
use information of what another chimp can see or cannot. In this experiment food was placed in such
a matter that either one or both chimps could see the food. One chimp was dominant over the other
one. The dominant one would always win if both could see the food. However in another test they
placed the food in such a way that one piece of food could be seen by both and one could only be
seen by the subordinate chimp. The subordinate chimp would than prefer the piece of food the
dominant one could not see. Because of this Hare proposses that the errors were mostly because
human trainers were involved and not members of the same species. Clearly the question still
remains how much different species understand the implications of what another individual can
percieve or think.
Conlcusion of this chapter is on pages 29 & 30.
Chapter 3 Detecting Cause and Effect
Detecting cause and effect is a simple ability, however so versatile that it can be extremely
useful in survival. This is called associative learning and means that one can associatate occurance A
with consequence B. Also called Conditioning. Conditioning can be split in two types, Classical
conditioning (aka pavlovian conditioning) or Instrumental conditioning. There is a great benefit to be
achieved by detecting cause and effect, knowing when to expect predators or knowing what effect
your actions have in certain situations might influence future behaviour. Detecting cause and effect
