The more and more I learn in my link class, the more convinced I am that the theory of evolution at least holds some water.
I've mentioned this class before, and it's a subject I always have to define (and redefine as they often forget) whenever I bring it up with my friends and family. In essence, we study prosimians, apes and monkeys, their behavior, and how we as humans are similar and different from them. The big picture, though, as the link will tell you, is examining how biology influences how humans behave and interact.
Those who accept the theory of evolution as plausible understand that chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest biological relatives from the evolutionary tree. Even those who do not accept the evolutionary theory understand that chimps share 97% of our genes. But do they share something with us beyond genetics?
Chimpanzee behavior is absolutely fascinating. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of National Geographic specials on them. But what interests me is how they seem to have a second level Theory of Mind.
From link: 'In recent years, the phrase "theory of mind" has more commonly been used to refer to a specific cognitive capacity: the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.'
Theory of Mind (ToM) is measured by levels of link. To have a level 0 of intensionality, a creature has to be completely unaware of itself and others as being different from the universe. To have a first level of intensionality, the creature has to be able to be aware of itself as different from the universe. In other words, it means the creature has consciousness. Now, before I go on, let me explain how scientists have already determined that chimpanzees do in fact have at least a first level theory of the mind.
To the best of our knowledge and experiments, most animals are not consciously aware. That isn't to say they don't feel pain, or even wants, fears, or emotions, it just means that they are not aware of themselves. Biologists have constructed link in order to test first level ToM in various animals from elephants to dogs to dolphins. An experimenter would anesthetize the animal and then mark it with a spot of bright paint on their forehead or near their eyes. The experimenter would then place the animal in front of a mirror and observe their behavior, to see if they would try to remove the spot. The reason this was done was to show that the animal would recognize its reflection as an image of itself.
Of course this test has plenty of discrepancies. First of all, we are assuming that animals understand the physics of reflective surfaces. I recognize that there is a species bias towards humans and the way we understand things, but we can quarrel over the objectivity of these tests later. Because, these discrepancies aside, there are two species of animal who passed the test. Dolphins and, unsurprisingly, chimpanzees.
It is through tests such as these, as well as observing chimpanzee behavior, that biologists have come to the general conclusion that chimps do, in fact, have a first level of intensionality. They are aware of themselves.
So now we move on to what would constitute a second level of intensionality. In order to have this, you need to be aware of your own consciousness and, simultaneously, be aware that someone else is also cognitively aware. And to have a third level of intensionality, you need to be cognitively aware of yourself, someone else, and understand that they are cognitively aware of you. Now you can go back and forth like this for eternity, but generally speaking, human beings hold about a fourth or fifth level intensionality before our brains begin to get a little muddled. Interestingly enough, women tend to have a higher Theory of Mind than men (and there is a biological reason for this, but again, that would be digressing from the main point).
To clarify, consider this example. A little boy tells his mother that he knows his friend is worried (second level-- the boy understands his friend thinks/has emotions). The little boy knows that his friend is worried about what a bully will do to him. His mother asks the boy why he doesn't tell his friend to tell the principal. The little boy replies that his friend thinks that the principal won't believe him (third level-- the boy thinks that his friend thinks that the teacher thinks). But after so many, HE said that SHE thinks that HE said that YOU did... we begin to get a little muddled. But you can hold a story like the little boy and his friend in your mind not a lot of trouble at all.
Back to chimpanzees: Having a second level of intensionality allows a creature the ability to lie, as well as to manipulate (which includes teaching and explaining, not just negative manipulations). It also allows for the ability of empathizing or understanding that another creature can feel and think things. Thirdly, it allows the ability of pretending or imagining the consequences of an action. This is why when an individual reaches a second level of intensionality (in humans, at around age four or five) is when the individual has a Theory of Mind. So in order to prove that a chimpanzee has a Theory of Mind, we need to observe them in this sort of behavior.
So have we seen chimpanzees lie or manipulate? Have we seen them empathize with others? The startling answer to these questions is: Maybe. OK, so you were hoping to see "yes!" But the problem is that no scientist yet has come up with an accurate, unambiguous experiment that would prove it one way or another. The problem with most of the conducted experiments is there can be other explanations for their behavior beyond manipulation or empathy.
Well, you might ask, how come we don't just ask them? That seems simple enough, right? I mean, we have taught chimps how to communicate with us through sign language, haven't we? So let's ask them some questions and see if they try to lie. Or ask them if they would feel bad if another chimp got hurt.
Well there is a problem that lies within language itself and that is that it has a human bias. Consider this example of link, a captive chimp with a vocabulary of up to seven hundred words in sign language. Washoe was quite close with her caretaker. One day, her caretaker became pregnant, and she discussed this with Washoe, who seemed to understand the situation fairly well. Then, the caretaker was gone for about a week and when she returned, Washoe asked the care taker "Where baby?"
The caretaker told Washoe, "Baby died."
Interestingly, Washoe became very reserved and then turned away from her caretaker and moved to a corner where she stayed for a while. After that, she came back over to the caretaker and said (through sign language): "Washoe sad," and then gave the caretaker a hug.
Now, to anyone who isn't an over-analyzing scientist (including myself), that would seem like pretty big proof that chimpanzees can empathize with others. However, the sharp mind realizes that Washoe is using human words to express her thoughts, and therein lies the problem. Simple nouns-- baby, tree house, Washoe-- are easy to communicate because they are physical objects. You could point to a four-legged furry thing and say "Dog" to a Frenchman and the Frenchman would nod and agree with "Chien." But the problem with ideas, including emotions, is that they aren't as easy to explain, or communicate, especially to another species, which may have thoughts and emotions completely different from our own. So once again, the species bias comes in. Is she using "sad" because she is actually feeling sad, or is she using the word because she links it to the expression on her caretaker's face? Remember, chimps can't read our expressions any easier than we can read theirs. So if a chimp told you that one of their expressions meant "doga," you would just associate that expression with that word without understanding it.
So language is a problem. We can't just ask them. How else can we figure out if they have a Theory of Mind? Well, if you answer that, you might just qualify for the Nobel Prize. Some primatologists spend their whole career trying to answer that question.
I want to give you a few more examples of chimpanzee behavior in relation to second level intensionality. Now, these have plenty of other explanations for them, which I will address for the sake of being "impartial" (which, you can clearly see, I'm not). But as far as this writer is concerned, chimpanzees are probably just as cognitive as we are.
Situation One: In the Wild
A juvenile-adult male (consider the equivalent of a teenager) has a mother who is rather dominant in his group. Though he does not depend on her any more, she is still very close to him, and will come to his aid if he ever needs him too. So this male was hanging out one day when he noticed an adult female munching on a particularly juicy root. He plops down on his behind and-- for seemingly no reason at all-- begins to wail the "Mommy, someone's hurting me!" panthoot. The mother, believing her child to be in danger, comes running. She sees the second female and attacks. The second female, in her surprise, drops the tasty root and starts running.
Meanwhile, the juvenile waddles over to the root, picks it up, and starts to eat.
Now, did the juvenile manipulate its mother in order to get the root? Did it plan for things to turn out that way? Well, maybe, maybe not. Any number of things could have caused him to scream. Maybe he had stepped on a thorn. Or maybe he just felt like screaming. Since we don't know the intention behind it, we can't say that he knew what was going to happen.
Scenario 2: Tricking The Silly Human
link was an adult male bonobo who also learned sign language with a human caretaker named Sue. One day, he went to Sue and told her that he wanted to go to the treehouse, which was a ways away from the sleeping enclosure. Sue told Kanzi, no, not today. Now, she had reasons. It was far, and it was going to rain that day and she didn't want them to be in that. But Kanzi threw a fit. He pounded the ground and kept telling Sue over and over that he wanted to go and she kept saying no. So he went in the corner and pouted awhile (they are very good at pouting, something our six year olds must get from them) before coming back to Sue, calmer now, and telling her that he wanted to go to the jungle gym.
Now, the jungle gym was right next to the enclosure and not very far away at all, so Sue agreed. She escorted Kanzi outside of the fens and Kanzi looked as if he was going tot he jungle gym, when he turned and made a mad dash in the direction of the tree house with Sue calling furiously after him.
So did Kanzi trick Sue into letting him out? Did he know that if he told Sue to take him to the jungle gym, he could go to the tree house? It certainly seems so. But (and you know there is always a but) there are other explanations. Kanzi may have just changed his mind. Or maybe he hadn't realized it until he was out of the enclosure. Who knows.
So I leave it up to you, the reader, to decide. With all this search for intelligent life out there in the universe to prove that we "are not alone," don't you think the most mind-boggling discovery would be if chimps are the intelligent life we've been searching for all along? I sure do.
I'll leave you to think about that for a moment.
I've mentioned this class before, and it's a subject I always have to define (and redefine as they often forget) whenever I bring it up with my friends and family. In essence, we study prosimians, apes and monkeys, their behavior, and how we as humans are similar and different from them. The big picture, though, as the link will tell you, is examining how biology influences how humans behave and interact.
Those who accept the theory of evolution as plausible understand that chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest biological relatives from the evolutionary tree. Even those who do not accept the evolutionary theory understand that chimps share 97% of our genes. But do they share something with us beyond genetics?
Chimpanzee behavior is absolutely fascinating. I'm sure you've seen your fair share of National Geographic specials on them. But what interests me is how they seem to have a second level Theory of Mind.
From link: 'In recent years, the phrase "theory of mind" has more commonly been used to refer to a specific cognitive capacity: the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.'
Theory of Mind (ToM) is measured by levels of link. To have a level 0 of intensionality, a creature has to be completely unaware of itself and others as being different from the universe. To have a first level of intensionality, the creature has to be able to be aware of itself as different from the universe. In other words, it means the creature has consciousness. Now, before I go on, let me explain how scientists have already determined that chimpanzees do in fact have at least a first level theory of the mind.
To the best of our knowledge and experiments, most animals are not consciously aware. That isn't to say they don't feel pain, or even wants, fears, or emotions, it just means that they are not aware of themselves. Biologists have constructed link in order to test first level ToM in various animals from elephants to dogs to dolphins. An experimenter would anesthetize the animal and then mark it with a spot of bright paint on their forehead or near their eyes. The experimenter would then place the animal in front of a mirror and observe their behavior, to see if they would try to remove the spot. The reason this was done was to show that the animal would recognize its reflection as an image of itself.
Of course this test has plenty of discrepancies. First of all, we are assuming that animals understand the physics of reflective surfaces. I recognize that there is a species bias towards humans and the way we understand things, but we can quarrel over the objectivity of these tests later. Because, these discrepancies aside, there are two species of animal who passed the test. Dolphins and, unsurprisingly, chimpanzees.
It is through tests such as these, as well as observing chimpanzee behavior, that biologists have come to the general conclusion that chimps do, in fact, have a first level of intensionality. They are aware of themselves.
So now we move on to what would constitute a second level of intensionality. In order to have this, you need to be aware of your own consciousness and, simultaneously, be aware that someone else is also cognitively aware. And to have a third level of intensionality, you need to be cognitively aware of yourself, someone else, and understand that they are cognitively aware of you. Now you can go back and forth like this for eternity, but generally speaking, human beings hold about a fourth or fifth level intensionality before our brains begin to get a little muddled. Interestingly enough, women tend to have a higher Theory of Mind than men (and there is a biological reason for this, but again, that would be digressing from the main point).
To clarify, consider this example. A little boy tells his mother that he knows his friend is worried (second level-- the boy understands his friend thinks/has emotions). The little boy knows that his friend is worried about what a bully will do to him. His mother asks the boy why he doesn't tell his friend to tell the principal. The little boy replies that his friend thinks that the principal won't believe him (third level-- the boy thinks that his friend thinks that the teacher thinks). But after so many, HE said that SHE thinks that HE said that YOU did... we begin to get a little muddled. But you can hold a story like the little boy and his friend in your mind not a lot of trouble at all.
Back to chimpanzees: Having a second level of intensionality allows a creature the ability to lie, as well as to manipulate (which includes teaching and explaining, not just negative manipulations). It also allows for the ability of empathizing or understanding that another creature can feel and think things. Thirdly, it allows the ability of pretending or imagining the consequences of an action. This is why when an individual reaches a second level of intensionality (in humans, at around age four or five) is when the individual has a Theory of Mind. So in order to prove that a chimpanzee has a Theory of Mind, we need to observe them in this sort of behavior.
So have we seen chimpanzees lie or manipulate? Have we seen them empathize with others? The startling answer to these questions is: Maybe. OK, so you were hoping to see "yes!" But the problem is that no scientist yet has come up with an accurate, unambiguous experiment that would prove it one way or another. The problem with most of the conducted experiments is there can be other explanations for their behavior beyond manipulation or empathy.
Well, you might ask, how come we don't just ask them? That seems simple enough, right? I mean, we have taught chimps how to communicate with us through sign language, haven't we? So let's ask them some questions and see if they try to lie. Or ask them if they would feel bad if another chimp got hurt.
Well there is a problem that lies within language itself and that is that it has a human bias. Consider this example of link, a captive chimp with a vocabulary of up to seven hundred words in sign language. Washoe was quite close with her caretaker. One day, her caretaker became pregnant, and she discussed this with Washoe, who seemed to understand the situation fairly well. Then, the caretaker was gone for about a week and when she returned, Washoe asked the care taker "Where baby?"
The caretaker told Washoe, "Baby died."
Interestingly, Washoe became very reserved and then turned away from her caretaker and moved to a corner where she stayed for a while. After that, she came back over to the caretaker and said (through sign language): "Washoe sad," and then gave the caretaker a hug.
Now, to anyone who isn't an over-analyzing scientist (including myself), that would seem like pretty big proof that chimpanzees can empathize with others. However, the sharp mind realizes that Washoe is using human words to express her thoughts, and therein lies the problem. Simple nouns-- baby, tree house, Washoe-- are easy to communicate because they are physical objects. You could point to a four-legged furry thing and say "Dog" to a Frenchman and the Frenchman would nod and agree with "Chien." But the problem with ideas, including emotions, is that they aren't as easy to explain, or communicate, especially to another species, which may have thoughts and emotions completely different from our own. So once again, the species bias comes in. Is she using "sad" because she is actually feeling sad, or is she using the word because she links it to the expression on her caretaker's face? Remember, chimps can't read our expressions any easier than we can read theirs. So if a chimp told you that one of their expressions meant "doga," you would just associate that expression with that word without understanding it.
So language is a problem. We can't just ask them. How else can we figure out if they have a Theory of Mind? Well, if you answer that, you might just qualify for the Nobel Prize. Some primatologists spend their whole career trying to answer that question.
I want to give you a few more examples of chimpanzee behavior in relation to second level intensionality. Now, these have plenty of other explanations for them, which I will address for the sake of being "impartial" (which, you can clearly see, I'm not). But as far as this writer is concerned, chimpanzees are probably just as cognitive as we are.
Situation One: In the Wild
A juvenile-adult male (consider the equivalent of a teenager) has a mother who is rather dominant in his group. Though he does not depend on her any more, she is still very close to him, and will come to his aid if he ever needs him too. So this male was hanging out one day when he noticed an adult female munching on a particularly juicy root. He plops down on his behind and-- for seemingly no reason at all-- begins to wail the "Mommy, someone's hurting me!" panthoot. The mother, believing her child to be in danger, comes running. She sees the second female and attacks. The second female, in her surprise, drops the tasty root and starts running.
Meanwhile, the juvenile waddles over to the root, picks it up, and starts to eat.
Now, did the juvenile manipulate its mother in order to get the root? Did it plan for things to turn out that way? Well, maybe, maybe not. Any number of things could have caused him to scream. Maybe he had stepped on a thorn. Or maybe he just felt like screaming. Since we don't know the intention behind it, we can't say that he knew what was going to happen.
Scenario 2: Tricking The Silly Human
link was an adult male bonobo who also learned sign language with a human caretaker named Sue. One day, he went to Sue and told her that he wanted to go to the treehouse, which was a ways away from the sleeping enclosure. Sue told Kanzi, no, not today. Now, she had reasons. It was far, and it was going to rain that day and she didn't want them to be in that. But Kanzi threw a fit. He pounded the ground and kept telling Sue over and over that he wanted to go and she kept saying no. So he went in the corner and pouted awhile (they are very good at pouting, something our six year olds must get from them) before coming back to Sue, calmer now, and telling her that he wanted to go to the jungle gym.
Now, the jungle gym was right next to the enclosure and not very far away at all, so Sue agreed. She escorted Kanzi outside of the fens and Kanzi looked as if he was going tot he jungle gym, when he turned and made a mad dash in the direction of the tree house with Sue calling furiously after him.
So did Kanzi trick Sue into letting him out? Did he know that if he told Sue to take him to the jungle gym, he could go to the tree house? It certainly seems so. But (and you know there is always a but) there are other explanations. Kanzi may have just changed his mind. Or maybe he hadn't realized it until he was out of the enclosure. Who knows.
So I leave it up to you, the reader, to decide. With all this search for intelligent life out there in the universe to prove that we "are not alone," don't you think the most mind-boggling discovery would be if chimps are the intelligent life we've been searching for all along? I sure do.
I'll leave you to think about that for a moment.