0
Are monkeys self-aware? How do we define awareness?
02 October 2010
There's an interesting article in this week's online edition of The Scientist about experiments done with rhesus monkeys and mirrors to determine if they recognize themselves. In other words, can they see themselves in the mirror and identify the image as their own self? That, we're told, indicated self-awareness.
Self-awareness in animals has been a controversial and contentious issue in science, in part because if scientists accept self-awareness in their test animals, it means they are experimenting - sometimes painfully - on sentient beings. It calls into play all sorts of issues around the ethics and morals of using sentient beings in research and the uncomfortable knowledge that brings. But it is also part of the attempt to define what intelligence and awarenes are in ourselves.
Traditional views before the 20th century said only humans were self-aware and animals reacted or behaved simply through instinct. That view of self-consciousness expanded to include higher primates in the 20th century, but few other species have been accorded that. Our primate cousins - we share more than 95% of the same DNA as chimpanzees - can recognize themselves in the mirror, therefore, it was reasoned, they are self-aware.
Of course, we know they can do more than that and primates respond intelligently in sign language at a level far beyond some mechanical instinct or learned traits. We recognize that primates are conscious, intelligent and self-aware beings today. They can use relative terms like here and there, you and I in their signing. That knowledge hasn't stopped people from experimenting on - and slaughtering - them in laboratories, though.
But a mirror is a limited and restrictive test. In part the results depend on the visual structure of the subject's eye and what it can perceive. And of that we can only offer guesses, but nothing conclusive. We know that what we see is not necessarily what other animals see, and a test based on our visual perception has a severely subjective aspect to any results.
Still, the mirror test has been used as a benchmark for the "cognitive divide" to identify where self-awareness is measured and that strikes me as forcibly artificial. The article notes:
Like many so-called "intelligence tests" performed on animals, this comes with some hefty preconceptions about what constitutes intelligence and awareness. But simply because a bear doesn't scratch its head when looking at a mirror doesn't mean it lacks perception, intelligence or self-awareness. Mirrors or reflections are not native to the environment of most animals, and even if some form of accurate reflection is found in their environment, the act of touching a dyed spot in response may simply not be natural.
A bear's intelligence test would probably include tasks like sniffing out food sources, knowing where to sleep in winter, or knowing where to catch salmon in a river. Humans would likely fail a test designed by bears in large part because we lack their physiological attributes. Bears, like dogs, live in a world of heightened sensory perceptions like sound and smell that are beyond what human sense can recognize. By a bear's standards, we must appear weak, and unintelligent.**
If a twelve-fingered alien were to arrive on the planet and give us a metallic box with no apparent seams, marks or openings, and measure our intelligence by our ability and quickness to open it, would we pass? What if the box required more digits than we own to simultaneously press locations that were visible only in ultraviolet light? Sure, in a lab, with a range of tools at our disposal, we might collectively figure it out. But we would probably complain that it wasn't a fair test because we don't have the biological components to respond to the test.
That's how I view most animal intelligence tests: we're measuring how well they respond to alien technology. That is not a valid yardstick and seems contrived.
In the article, it notes that these monkeys will touch a black-dyed spot on their arms or legs, showing obvious recognition that there was a change. But they didn't always respond to a mirror where they could see a spot on their heads. That apparently changed when the spot was dyed a bright colour - some monkeys responded and touched it when seeing it in a mirror. That speaks to me of a flaw in the testing process, or in mistaken assumptions of the monkeys' visual physiology, not in a sudden change in self-awareness. Perhaps they are coded to ignore dark spots as common indicators of wetness or dirt, but see brightly coloured marks as invasive, therefore they respond to them. We don't know.
Plus, it seems, that familiarity with mirrors changes the outcome of the test and monkeys used to mirrors in their environment do better. In a similar manner, urban wildlife becomes aware of cars, and can avoid them far better than their wild counterparts. So caged monkeys accustomed to seeing mirrors seem more likely to respond to them in a manner that suits human preconceptions about their intelligence and behaviour. That speaks to the adaptability and intelligence of the animals, but does not tell me that they were any less intelligent or self-aware before they became used to the devices in their environment.
Are we any smarter or more self-aware because we can manipulate cell phones and Wii controllers effectively? Are our grandparents any less so because they find some new technology baffling and awkward?*
Anyone with a pet cat or dog can speak volumes about their animals' animal awareness, intelligence and problem solving abilities, yet I doubt a cat or dog will respond well to a mirror test of this sort (although some of my cats seem to enjoy playing with their mirror refelctions and seem to recognize themselves, others ignore them). Are they therefore not self-aware? I suggest quite the opposite. Dogs and cats exhibit self-motivated behaviour that defines intelligence and self-awareness. Simply not being able to respond to a mirror test is akin to saying they're not self-aware because they can't drive the car they can jump into.
Read more: Are monkeys self-aware? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scien.../#ixzz11CkGLX3e
~~~~~
* In a reverse effect, most of today's adults could not effectively use the tools our grandparents used. When my grandfather was a young boy, most families depended on horses and many people were used to controlling, feeding and caring for horses on a daily basis. Water came from a well with a pump that had to be maintained. Butter was churned at home from fresh milk. Ice cream was made at home, too. Light came from gas or oil lamps, not electricity. My grandfather and his father built their own homes. I doubt many of us today could do or effectively manage any of those things. We would fail our own ancestors' intelligence tests if they were based on technology familiar to them.
** Brain size, shape and complexity is also sometimes used as a measure of an animal's capacity for intelligence and self-awareness. But that too is a restrictive and highly subjective measurement based on our own, limited, understanding of how our brains function. Simply having lots of cerebral folds is not really a good yardstick because there are many more things involved in brain physiology.
Self-awareness in animals has been a controversial and contentious issue in science, in part because if scientists accept self-awareness in their test animals, it means they are experimenting - sometimes painfully - on sentient beings. It calls into play all sorts of issues around the ethics and morals of using sentient beings in research and the uncomfortable knowledge that brings. But it is also part of the attempt to define what intelligence and awarenes are in ourselves.
Traditional views before the 20th century said only humans were self-aware and animals reacted or behaved simply through instinct. That view of self-consciousness expanded to include higher primates in the 20th century, but few other species have been accorded that. Our primate cousins - we share more than 95% of the same DNA as chimpanzees - can recognize themselves in the mirror, therefore, it was reasoned, they are self-aware.
Of course, we know they can do more than that and primates respond intelligently in sign language at a level far beyond some mechanical instinct or learned traits. We recognize that primates are conscious, intelligent and self-aware beings today. They can use relative terms like here and there, you and I in their signing. That knowledge hasn't stopped people from experimenting on - and slaughtering - them in laboratories, though.
But a mirror is a limited and restrictive test. In part the results depend on the visual structure of the subject's eye and what it can perceive. And of that we can only offer guesses, but nothing conclusive. We know that what we see is not necessarily what other animals see, and a test based on our visual perception has a severely subjective aspect to any results.
Still, the mirror test has been used as a benchmark for the "cognitive divide" to identify where self-awareness is measured and that strikes me as forcibly artificial. The article notes:
Quote
"In most instances, monkeys do not show [self-awareness]," Christopher Coe, director of the Harlow Primate Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who was not involved in the work, said in an email to The Scientist. But the new study "indicates that rhesus monkeys can acquire this ability in the right setting and with the right tools."
For years, the Gallup mark test has been the standard method for assessing self-awareness. Researchers dye a small tuft of hair on an animal's head, and then give it access to a mirror. If the animal touched the mark while looking in the mirror, researchers concluded it understood the reflection to be its own. Humans over the age of two, chimpanzees, orangutans and potentially gorillas can conclusively pass this test. Monkeys, on the other hand, nearly always fail.
For years, the Gallup mark test has been the standard method for assessing self-awareness. Researchers dye a small tuft of hair on an animal's head, and then give it access to a mirror. If the animal touched the mark while looking in the mirror, researchers concluded it understood the reflection to be its own. Humans over the age of two, chimpanzees, orangutans and potentially gorillas can conclusively pass this test. Monkeys, on the other hand, nearly always fail.
Like many so-called "intelligence tests" performed on animals, this comes with some hefty preconceptions about what constitutes intelligence and awareness. But simply because a bear doesn't scratch its head when looking at a mirror doesn't mean it lacks perception, intelligence or self-awareness. Mirrors or reflections are not native to the environment of most animals, and even if some form of accurate reflection is found in their environment, the act of touching a dyed spot in response may simply not be natural.
A bear's intelligence test would probably include tasks like sniffing out food sources, knowing where to sleep in winter, or knowing where to catch salmon in a river. Humans would likely fail a test designed by bears in large part because we lack their physiological attributes. Bears, like dogs, live in a world of heightened sensory perceptions like sound and smell that are beyond what human sense can recognize. By a bear's standards, we must appear weak, and unintelligent.**
If a twelve-fingered alien were to arrive on the planet and give us a metallic box with no apparent seams, marks or openings, and measure our intelligence by our ability and quickness to open it, would we pass? What if the box required more digits than we own to simultaneously press locations that were visible only in ultraviolet light? Sure, in a lab, with a range of tools at our disposal, we might collectively figure it out. But we would probably complain that it wasn't a fair test because we don't have the biological components to respond to the test.
That's how I view most animal intelligence tests: we're measuring how well they respond to alien technology. That is not a valid yardstick and seems contrived.
In the article, it notes that these monkeys will touch a black-dyed spot on their arms or legs, showing obvious recognition that there was a change. But they didn't always respond to a mirror where they could see a spot on their heads. That apparently changed when the spot was dyed a bright colour - some monkeys responded and touched it when seeing it in a mirror. That speaks to me of a flaw in the testing process, or in mistaken assumptions of the monkeys' visual physiology, not in a sudden change in self-awareness. Perhaps they are coded to ignore dark spots as common indicators of wetness or dirt, but see brightly coloured marks as invasive, therefore they respond to them. We don't know.
Plus, it seems, that familiarity with mirrors changes the outcome of the test and monkeys used to mirrors in their environment do better. In a similar manner, urban wildlife becomes aware of cars, and can avoid them far better than their wild counterparts. So caged monkeys accustomed to seeing mirrors seem more likely to respond to them in a manner that suits human preconceptions about their intelligence and behaviour. That speaks to the adaptability and intelligence of the animals, but does not tell me that they were any less intelligent or self-aware before they became used to the devices in their environment.
Are we any smarter or more self-aware because we can manipulate cell phones and Wii controllers effectively? Are our grandparents any less so because they find some new technology baffling and awkward?*
Anyone with a pet cat or dog can speak volumes about their animals' animal awareness, intelligence and problem solving abilities, yet I doubt a cat or dog will respond well to a mirror test of this sort (although some of my cats seem to enjoy playing with their mirror refelctions and seem to recognize themselves, others ignore them). Are they therefore not self-aware? I suggest quite the opposite. Dogs and cats exhibit self-motivated behaviour that defines intelligence and self-awareness. Simply not being able to respond to a mirror test is akin to saying they're not self-aware because they can't drive the car they can jump into.
Read more: Are monkeys self-aware? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences http://www.the-scien.../#ixzz11CkGLX3e
~~~~~
* In a reverse effect, most of today's adults could not effectively use the tools our grandparents used. When my grandfather was a young boy, most families depended on horses and many people were used to controlling, feeding and caring for horses on a daily basis. Water came from a well with a pump that had to be maintained. Butter was churned at home from fresh milk. Ice cream was made at home, too. Light came from gas or oil lamps, not electricity. My grandfather and his father built their own homes. I doubt many of us today could do or effectively manage any of those things. We would fail our own ancestors' intelligence tests if they were based on technology familiar to them.
** Brain size, shape and complexity is also sometimes used as a measure of an animal's capacity for intelligence and self-awareness. But that too is a restrictive and highly subjective measurement based on our own, limited, understanding of how our brains function. Simply having lots of cerebral folds is not really a good yardstick because there are many more things involved in brain physiology.
