Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Chimpanzee mind vs. human mind

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Gap: The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals Earlier we noted that the “We share 99% of our DNA with chimps” claim rises again” (Like Dracula it can’t really die, as it is culturally needed. So it just keeps rising from the grave. Evidence is irrelevant.*)

In a paywalled article in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Henry Gee reviews Thomas Suddendorf’s The Gap:

Suddendorf’s task is to get into the minds of apes to get a more precise idea of what it is that separates us from the other apes. He concludes that the difference springs from six interdependent facilities, some of which are present in some degree in other creatures but which, in humans, reinforce one another, bootstrapping us from the mud and into the firmament. These facilities are language, foresight (‘mental time travel’), mind reading (the ability to see the world from someone else’s viewpoint), intelligence, culture, and morality. Suddendorf looks at all of these in detail, charting how they develop in children and noting the limitations in all of these spheres of other animals, mainly apes.

Gee goes on to suggest that it might be fruitful to study the minds of animals not believed to be remotely related to humans, such as crows and octopuses. That seems like a good idea, because it might help us determine more clearly what we mean by “intelligence” in animals.

See also: Matching Darwin’s “Tree of Life,” the “Tree of Intelligence” comes crashing down

The eggheads: Have bird brains scrambled Darwin’s tree of life?

and Sublime Mold

From book promo:

There exists an undeniable chasm between the capacities of humans and those of animals. Our minds have spawned civilizations and technologies that have changed the face of the Earth, whereas even our closest animal relatives sit unobtrusively in their dwindling habitats. Yet despite longstanding debates, the nature of this apparent gap has remained unclear. What exactly is the difference between our minds and theirs?

In The Gap, psychologist Thomas Suddendorf provides a definitive account of the mental qualities that separate humans from other animals, as well as how these differences arose. Drawing on two decades of research on apes, children, and human evolution, he surveys the abilities most often cited as uniquely human—language, intelligence, morality, culture, theory of mind, and mental time travel—and finds that two traits account for most of the ways in which our minds appear so distinct: Namely, our open-ended ability to imagine and reflect on scenarios, and our insatiable drive to link our minds together. These two traits explain how our species was able to amplify qualities that we inherited in parallel with our animal counterparts; transforming animal communication into language, memory into mental time travel, sociality into mind reading, problem solving into abstract reasoning, traditions into culture, and empathy into morality. More.

* It’s not good for the importance of the gene in creating the “form” of a life form if that is true. Of course, it all depends on what one wishes to count, but much lower figures are more responsibly offered.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
The genomes are not 99% identical. They're 99%, plus or minus 5%. ;-) -QQuerius
April 30, 2015
April
04
Apr
30
30
2015
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
Eat Chimpanzee. It's tastier than your closest relative.Mung
April 29, 2015
April
04
Apr
29
29
2015
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
Chimpanzee mind vs. human mind? How is that a chimpanzee mind beyond their instinct? Let's test it. Would a chimpanzees MIND if I put their " mind" to a test of MIND?KevNick
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
a few notes:
Darwin's mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. - 2008 Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as "one of degree and not of kind" (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18479531 Origin of the Mind: Marc Hauser - Scientific American - April 2009 Excerpt: "Researchers have found some of the building blocks of human cognition in other species. But these building blocks make up only the cement footprint of the skyscraper that is the human mind",,, http://www.wjh.harvard.edu?/~mnkylab/publications/rec?ent/mindSciAm.pdf On the lack of evidence that non-human animals possess anything remotely resembling a theory of mind’ - 2007 Abstract After decades of effort by some of our brightest human and non-human minds, there is still little consensus on whether or not non-human animals understand anything about the unobservable mental states of other animals or even what it would mean for a non-verbal animal to understand the concept of a 'mental state'. In the present paper, we confront four related and contentious questions head-on: (i) What exactly would it mean for a non-verbal organism to have an 'understanding' or a 'representation' of another animal's mental state? (ii) What should (and should not) count as compelling empirical evidence that a non-verbal cognitive agent has a system for understanding or forming representations about mental states in a functionally adaptive manner? (iii) Why have the kind of experimental protocols that are currently in vogue failed to produce compelling evidence that non-human animals possess anything even remotely resembling a theory of mind? (iv) What kind of experiments could, at least in principle, provide compelling evidence for such a system in a non-verbal organism? (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 362, 731-744, doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.2023) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17264056 A scientist looks again at Project Nim - Trying to teach Chimps to talk fails Excerpt: "The language didn't materialize. A human baby starts out mostly imitating, then begins to string words together. Nim didn't learn. His three-sign combinations - such as 'eat me eat' or 'play me Nim' - were redundant. He imitated signs to get rewards. I published the negative results in 1979 in the journal Science, which had a chilling effect on the field." http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2011/07/19/a_scientist_looks_again_at_project_nim Young Children Have Grammar and Chimpanzees Don't - Apr. 10, 2013 Excerpt: "When you compare what children should say if they follow grammar against what children do say, you find it to almost indistinguishable," Yang said. "If you simulate the expected diversity when a child is only repeating what adults say, it produces a diversity much lower than what children actually say." As a comparison, Yang applied the same predictive models to the set of Nim Chimpsky's signed phrases, the only data set of spontaneous animal language usage publicly available. He found further evidence for what many scientists, including Nim's own trainers, have contended about Nim: that the sequences of signs Nim put together did not follow from rules like those in human language. Nim's signs show significantly lower diversity than what is expected under a systematic grammar and were similar to the level expected with memorization. This suggests that true language learning is -- so far -- a uniquely human trait, and that it is present very early in development. "The idea that children are only imitating adults' language is very intuitive, so it's seen a revival over the last few years," Yang said. "But this is strong statistical evidence in favor of the idea that children actually know a lot about abstract grammar from an early age." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130410131327.htm
The following paper holds that since words themselves are irreducibly complex in many cases then language could not have been acquired gradually but must have 'emerged' abruptly:
New paper suggests speech developed in a now-familiar form - March 31, 2015 Excerpt: "The hierarchical complexity found in present-day language is likely to have been present in human language since its emergence," says Shigeru Miyagawa, Professor of Linguistics,,, "Since we can find syntax within words, there is no reason to consider them as 'linguistic fossils' of a prior, presyntax stage," Miyagawa adds.,,, Nobrega and Miyagawa write that a single word can be "internally complex, often as complex as an entire phrase," making it less likely that words we use today are descended from a presyntax mode of speech.,,, "Hierarchical structure is present not only in single words, but also in compounds, which, contrary to the claims of some, are not the structureless fossilized form of a prior stage," Miyagawa says. In their paper, Nobrega and Miyagawa hold that the same analysis applies to words in Romance languages that have been described elsewhere as remnants of formless proto-languages.,,, Miyagawa's integration hypothesis is connected intellectually to the work of other MIT scholars, such as Noam Chomsky, who have contended that human languages are universally connected and derive from our capacity for using syntax.,,, http://phys.org/news/2015-03-paper-speech-now-familiar.html Language study offers new twist on mind-body connection - Feb. 2, 2014 Excerpt: The results show that speech perception automatically engages the articulatory motor system, but linguistic preferences persist even when the language motor system is disrupted. These findings suggest that, despite their intimate links, the language and motor systems are distinct. "Language is designed to optimize motor action, but its knowledge consists of principles that are disembodied and potentially abstract," the researchers concluded. http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-language-mind-body.html Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.” http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language - December 19, 2014 Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,, (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, "The mystery of language evolution," Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).) It's difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/leading_evoluti092141.html
bornagain77
April 28, 2015
April
04
Apr
28
28
2015
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT
Language is not unique. its just smarter with us. The list is not well done at all. We are more intelligent and more then then that. Creatures are all dumb without much of a curve difference between them. We are made in Gods intellectual image and employ what ghe does. Wisdom, understanding, knowledge. We use our great memory to organize all that. Animals don't use their great memory abilities because they are so dumb. Looking like apes don't make one a ape. Its just the best body for a God like being to use in a planet with a general blueprint for physical form. We couldn't have a different type of body and yet live in the blueprint. We are the only being that rents another creatures type of body. nobody else. So the smartest one uniquely looks like another dumb one. Nobody else.Robert Byers
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT
Wow, that's quite a test, ppolish! I'm glad that I don't have to memorize the current speculations, only to have to try to forget them and re-memorize them later. Be sure to notice the level of Bloom's taxonomy of learning at which this exam has been constructed . . . the lowest level. Oh, and I forget, how many moons does Jupiter have again? What are the names of the kingdoms in Biological classification? How many fundamental particles are there? Mapou noted
. . . unless, of course, he thinks flinging feces toward onlookers at the zoo is an advanced form of abstract art.
Yes, it's actually called performance art and you can see quite a bit of it here! ;-) -QQuerius
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
I'm surprised that Suddendorf does not notice that apes (and other animals), unlike humans, don't give a rat's behind about music, beauty and the arts unless, of course, he thinks flinging feces toward onlookers at the zoo is an advanced form of abstract art.Mapou
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT
Suddendorf’s task is to get into the minds of apes to get a more precise idea of what it is that separates us from the other apes.
Why can't he just follow the chemicals in their heads?Mung
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Anyone know the answer to #24 in the multiple choice section? http://www.cabrillo.edu/~crsmith/PracticeExam.Final.doc Would that be where "original sin" was committed?ppolish
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Lumping the plentiful Hominids in with Great Apes was a mistake. A 1960's mistake. Need to be split apart once again. But I wonder if Chimps should be considered "Lesser Hominids"? Most Humans can "see" a "reflection" of their own soul when looking into their inner "mirrors". Some can't. Evolution of consciousness is a continuum it seems.ppolish
April 27, 2015
April
04
Apr
27
27
2015
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply